i     N  ;i 


LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 


Mrs.  SARAH  P.  WALS  WORTH. 

Received  October,  1894. 
Accessions  No.         ti  Class  No. 


\J 


THE 

y      xf 


CONFLICT  OF  AGES; 


O  R 


THE  GREAT  DEBATE 


MORAL  RELATIONS   OF   GOD   AND   MAN, 


BY 

EDWARD    BEECHER,   D.  D. 

\  \ 

i  B.  WALSWORTH;  AiBIOH,  E  I, 

Why  judge  ye  not,  even  of  yourselves,  what  is  right  ?  —  JESUS  CHRIST. 


BOSTON: 

PHILLIPS,   SAMPSON   AND   COMPANY. 
1853. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1853,  by 

EDWARD    BEECHER, 
In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  District  of  Massachusetts 


Stereotyped    by 

HOBART   A   ROBBINS, 

BOSTON. 


MY  HONORED  AND  BELOVED  BRETHREN  IN  CHRIST, 

OF    EVERY    NAME. 

I  am  induced  to  dedicate  this  work  to  you,  because  its  subject  is  one  in 
which  you  all  have  a  deep  and  common  interest.  You  will  doubtless  observe 
that  I  do  not  address  you  as  a  controversialist,  aiming  to  promote  the  in 
terests  of  any  existing  theological  party,  but  simply  as  a  Christian  brother, 
endeavoring  to  remove  the  causes  of  paralysis  and  division  from  our 
common  Christianity,  and  thus  to  promote  the  interests  of  the  church 
as  a  whole.  I  think  also  that  you  will  not  deny  that  the  issue  which 
I  present  to  you  is  of  sufficient  magnitude  to  deserve  and  demand  your 
candid  and  careful  consideration.  The  great  conflict  of  which  I  speak 
is,  on  the  whole,  the  most  prominent  and  important  fact  in  the  history  of 
the  church.  So  great  a  fact  must  have  an  adequate  cause.  Moreover, 
a  cause  powerful  enough  to  produce,  for  so  many  centuries,  such  stu 
pendous  results,  must  also  be  powerful  enough  seriously  to  affect  the 
adaptation  of  Christianity,  as  a  system,  to  accomplish  all  that  is  in 
volved  in  the  great  work  of  the  conversion  of  the  world.  It  is  not  enough 
that  the  existing  system  can  do  some  good,  or  even  much  good  ;  we  need 
a  system  that  shall  give  us  the  power  intelligently  to  meet  and  logically 
to  solve  all  of  the  great  religious  and  social  problems  which  we  are  called 
on  to  encounter  in  the  great  work  of  converting  the  world,  and  thoroughly 
reorganizing  human  society  ;  for  this  work  is  not  to  be  done,  even  in 
part,  by  infidel  philosophy,  but  solely  by  the  gospel  of  Christ,  in  its 
purity  and  power,  as  applied  to  all  the  relations  of  human  society. 

Animated  by  these  considerations,  I  have  endeavored  to  point  out,  as 
the  cause  of  the  conflict,  an  element  foreign  to  the  system,  and  which 
creates  constant  and  powerful  tendencies  to  pernicious  errors  in  philoso 
phy  and  in  doctrine,  divides  the  church,  depresses  the  tone  of  piety,  and 
thus  paralyzes  the  energies  of  Christianity,  and  unfits  it  to  accomplish  the 
great  enterprise  which  it  has  undertaken. 


IV  DEDICATION. 

Whatever,  my  Christian  brethren,  may  be  your  ultimate  conclusions 
concerning  the  truth  of  my  views,  I  cannot  but  believe  that  every  intelli 
gent  man  will  concede  that  they  involve  interests  so  great  as  to  merit  a 
thorough  and  prayerful  consideration. 

From  this  I  do  not  shrink,  —  nay,  I  earnestly  desire  it.  My  prayer  is, 
Let  God  guide  his  church  into  all  truth,  and  let  the  truth  prevail.  I  feel 
that  such,  too,  are  the  momentous  relations  of  the  subject  that  He  cannot 
be  indifferent  to  it ;  and  that  if  we  seek  his  guidance  in  true  humility, 
and  free  from  the  power  of  previous  committals,  it  will  be  freely  given. 
The  most  profound  inquiry,  conducted  under  his  guidance,  I  do  not  fear. 
I  fear  nothing  but  a  partisan  spirit  and  sinful  excitement,  and  those 
narrow  and  local  views  to  which  they  give  rise. 

But  so  great  is  the  power  and  the  grace  of  our  God  and  Saviour,  Jesus 
Christ,  that  I  look  for  better  things  in  you,  and  things  that  accompany 
salvation.  God  is  giving  increasing  enlargement  of  views,  fraternal  affec 
tion,  and  Christian  dignity,  to  the  leading  minds  of  his  church  in  the 
various  Christian  denominations.  Moreover,  I  think  with  great  and  con 
stantly  increasing  pleasure  of  that  widely-extended  circle  of  sanctified 
and  highly-educated  minds,  in  every  Christian  body,  whom  it  is  my  privi 
lege  and  honor  to  call  my  beloved  brethren  in  Christ.  I  rejoice  in  the 
thought  of  their  intellectual  and  moral  power  and  ample  resources, 
and  of  the  cheering  fact  that  they  are  all  consecrated  to  the  service  of  our 
common  Lord  and  Saviour.  I  rejoice  still  more  in  the  assurance  that  we 
are  in  daily  communion  with  one  common  God  and  Father,  who  is  over 
all,  and  in  all,  and  through  all ;  and  that  nothing  is  too  much  for  us 
mutually  to  ask  for  each  other,  and  to  expect  to  receive  through  his  grace, 
and  the  mighty  working  in  us  of  the  power  of  the  divine  and  sacred  Spirit. 

May  He,  therefore,  guide  you  into  all  the  truth,  till  the  light  of  the 
moon  shall  be  as  the  light  of  the  sun,  and  the  light  of  the  sun  shall  be 
seven-fold,  as  the  light  of  seven  days  ;  till  the  watchmen  shall  see  eye  to 
eye,  and  together  lift  up  the  voice  and  sing,  when  the  Lord  shall  turn 
back  the  captivity  of  his  people,  and  cause  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  to 
rejoice  in  his  salvation  ! 

Yours,  in  Christian  affection, 

E.  BEECHER. 
BOSTON,  August  27,  1853. 
\ 


SUMMARY  VIEW  OF  THE  CONTENTS. 


INTRODUCTION.  —  Nature  of  the  conflict.     End  and  compass  of 
the  work, 1 — 8 


BOOK    I. 

THE  CONFLICT  IN  ITS  PRINCIPLES. 

CHAPTER  I.  —  THE  CASE  STATED.  —  The  steam-ship.  The  question 
to  be  discussed,  Is  there  a  misadjustment  of  the  moving  powers  of 
Christianity,  resulting  in  an  inevitable  logical  conflict  ?  .  .  .  .  9 — 10 

CHAPTER  IL—  PRESUMPTIVE  ARGUMENT.  —  Conflict  of  Old  School 
and  New  School  divines.  Great  evils  of  the  conflict.  Exist 
ence  of  the  same  conflict  in  substance  for  fifteen  centuries,  .  .  .  11 — 15 

CHAPTER  HI.  —  THE  MOVING  POWERS  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  —  The 
powers  essential  to  the  practical  working  of  the  system.  The 
principles  of  honor  and  of  right.  A  full  statement  of  the  fallen 
and  ruined  condition  of  man, 16—18 

CHAPTER  IV.  —  THE  PRINCIPLES  or  HONOR  AND  OP  RIGHT.  —The 
origin  of  these  principles.  How  developed.  Opinions  of  philos 
ophers.  Testimony  of  Scripture.  Expositions  of  Dr.  Hodge, 
Prof.  Stuart,  Dr.  Chalmers,  Tholuck,  Melancthon  and  Calvin. 
The  supreme  importance  and  authority  of  these  principles. 
Questions  to  be  tested  by  them, 19 — 30 

CHAPTER  V.  —  STATEMENT  OF  MORAL  PRINCIPLES.  —  The  obliga 
tions  of  great  and  powerful  minds  to  inferior  and  feeble  minds. 
Application  to  God.  Obligations  of  God  —  as  to  the  standard  of 
responsibility  ;  as  to  the  maintenance  of  the  principles  of  jus 
tice  in  imputation  and  retribution  ;  as  to  the  original  consti 
tutions  and  circumstances  of  his  creatures.  Support  of  these 
principles  from  Scripture  and  from  Christian  experience,  .  .  .  31 — 41 

CHAPTER  VI.  —  ORTHODOX  AUTHORITIES.  —  How  far  the  princi 
ples  above  stated  have  been  recognized  by  the  church.  Testimony 
of  Turretin,  of  the  Princeton  divines,  of  Dr.  Watts,  of  J.  Wesley, 
of  the  Westminster  divines.  Supreme  importance  of  these  prin 
ciples,  42 — 50 

CHAPTER  VII.  —  FACTS  AS  TO  HUMAN  DEPRAVITY.  —  The  second 
moving  power  is  a  thorough  view  of  human  depravity  and  ruin. 
Certain  facts  are  obvious.  Statement  of  them  by  Unitarian 

1* 


VI  SUMMARY    VIEW    OF   THE    CONTENTS. 

divines — Dr.  Burnap,  Pres.  Sparks,  Prof.  Norton,  Dr.  Dewey. 

Their  theory.  Need  of  a  deeper  view  virtually  conceded,  .  .  51 — 60 

CHAPTER  VIE.— RADICAL  VIEW  OF  THE  RUIN  OF  MAN.— 
Necessity  of  depth  and  thoroughness.  Points  involved  iu  a 
full  view.  Statements  of  Calvin.  Synod  of  Dort.  Confession 
of  Helvetia.  Confession  of  the  Waldenses.  French  Confes 
sion.  The  Church  of  England.  Confession  of  Belgia.  Con 
fession  of  Augsburg.  Moravian  confession.  The  Westminster 
divines.  Exposition  and  remarks, 61 — 71 

CHAPTER  IX. — SOCIAL  AND  OKGANIC  RELATIONS  OF  MAN. — 
Corrupting  power  of  sinful  family  relations,  and  of  depraved 
social  and  political  organizations.  Views  of  Dr.  Burnap,  .  .  72 — 75 

CHAPTER  X.  —  RELATIONS  OF  MAN  TO  INVISIBLE  ENEMIES.  — 
A  kingdom  of  fallen  spirits  revealed.  Their  power  and  wiles. 
Exposure  of  man  to  their  influence, 76 — 78 

CHAPTER  XI. — THE  CONFLICT  A  REALITY.  —  Each  moving 
power  is  real,  true,  and  well-sustained.  Yet,  as  now  adjusted, 
they  are  in  direct  conflict.  Proof  of  this  assertion, 79 — 82 


BOOK    II. 

THE  CONFLICT  IN   EXPERIENCE. 

CHAPTER  I.  —  LAWS  OF  THOUGHT  AND  EMOTION  UNDER  THE  SYS 
TEM.  —  Nature  and  design  of  Christianity.  Interests  involved. 
Depth  of  emotions  excited.  Tendencies  to  division  and  con 
flict,  83—85 

CHAPTER  II.  —  EXPERIENCES  CHARACTERIZED.  —  Caused  by  the 
predominance,  in  diiferent  minds,  of  contending  parts  of  the 
system.  Resulting  in  reactions.  Six  enumerated, 86 — 88 

CHAPTER  III.  —  FIRST  EXPERIENCE  ;  OR,  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF 
OLD  SCHOOL  THEOLOGY.  —  Its  basis  a  belief  of  a  depraved 
nature  before  action.  Its  origin  a  deep  Christian  experience. 
Illustrated  by  the  case  of  Edwards.  Scriptural  testimony. 
Public  formularies.  Sources  of  its  power, 89 — 97 

CHAPTER  IV.— THE  REACTION.  —  Not  the  result  of  carnal 
reason,  but  of  the  divine  principles  of  equity  and  honor. 
These  principles  not  denied.  Effort  to  avert  the  conflict.  A 
most  remarkable  position.  Immeasurable  interests  involved. 
A  failure, 98—101 

CHAPTER  V.  —  THE  REACTION  IRRESISTIBLE,  AS  THE  SYSTEM 
NOW  is.  —  Virtual  confession  of  Dr.  Woods.  Improper  mode 
of  representing  the  principles  of  honor  and  right.  Attempt 
at  defence  by  Dr.  Hodge.  His  virtual  confession.  Course  of 
Abelard,  Pascal  and  others.  Course  of  Dr.  Chalmers.  They 
improperly  repudiate  the  application  of  the  principles  of  equity 
and  honor,  as  unauthorized  rationalizing.  In  so  doing  they 
are  at  war  with  the  word  of  God, 102 — 115 


SUMMARY    VIEW    OF   THE    CONTENTS.  VII 


CHAPTER  VI.  —  SECOND  EXPERIENCE  ;  OB,  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF 
UNITARIAN  THEOLOGY.  —  An  entire  recoil  from  the  Old  School 
theology.  Its  result  is  the  rejection  of  radical  views  of  human 
depravity.  Its  strength  is  in  the  principles  of  equity  and 
honor.  Early  development  of  the  system  in  New  England. 
Case  of  John  Adams,  of  Story,  and  of  Channing.  They 
argued  logically  from  the  true  principles  of  honor  and  right. 
Extracts  from  Dr.  Channing.  He  vindicates  these  principles. 
Inadequate  replies.  Power  of  the  system, 116 — 130 

CHAPTER  VII.  —  THE  REACTION.  TESTIMONY  OF  DR.  CHANNING 
AND  OTHERS.  OBVIOUS  FACTS.  —  Christian  experience  and 
Scripture  react.  Disappointment  of  the  anticipations  of  Dr. 
Channing.  Reasons.  His  altered  views  of  Unitarianism. 
The  increasing  power  of  Christian  experience  and  the  word  of 
God  decide  the  question, 131 — 140 

CHAPTER  VIII.  —  DEGRADATION  OF  FREE  AGENCY  ITSELF.— 
Original  righteousness  rejected.  Position  of  Dr.  Ware,  Dr. 
Dewey,  and  Dr.  Burnap.  Hegelian  theory, 141 — 146 

CHAPTER  IX.  —  THIRD  EXPERIENCE  ;  OR,  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF 
ORTHODOX  UNIVERSALISM.  —  Both  moving  powers  retained. 
Relief  sought  in  Universalism.  Case  of  John  Foster.  His 
character,  views  and  course.  Extent  of  his  influence,  .  .  .  .147 — 155 

CHAPTER  X.-— THE  REACTION.— Influence  of  the  Bible  and 
of  a  Christian  experience.  The  nature  of  cruelty,  the  neces 
sity  of  regeneration,  and  the  causes  of  future  misery.  The 
tendency  of  moral  causes, 156 — 159 

CHAPTER  XI.— THE  FOURTH  EXPERIENCE;  OR,  THE  PHILOS 
OPHY  OF  NEW  SCHOOL  THEOLOGY.  —  Both  moving  powers  are 
retained,  but  the  facts  are  modified  by  the  principles.  Its 
origin  from  holy  men,  for  practical  ends.  Influence  of  Ed 
wards  and  Fuller.  Peculiarities  of  this  theology.  Appeal  to 
the  principles  of  honor  and  right.  Controversy  with  the  old 
theology.  Extracts  from  Whelpley.  Power  of  the  system  in 
revivals.  Its  auspicious  general  influences, 160 — 167 

CHAPTER  XII. — THE  REACTION.  —  Causes  of  a  reaction  are 
found  in  the  consequences  of  denying  a  sinful  nature  before 
action.  Either  sin  is  caused  by  divine  efficiency,  as  held  by 
Dr.  Emmons,  or  by  an  innocent  though  deteriorated  nature 
and  circumstances.  Charge  of  a  superficial  view  of  depravity. 
Alarm  of  Dr.  Nettleton  and  others.  Charge  that  the  conflict 
with  the  principles  of  honor  and  right  is  not  averted.  Argu 
ments  of  Dr.  Hodge.  Princeton  divines.  Dr.  Woods.  De 
gradation  of  free  agency  results  in  some  cases,  168 — 183 

CHAPTER  XIII.  —  THE  FIFTH  EXPERIENCE  ;  OR,  THE  ECLIPSE 
OF  THE  GLORY  OF  GOD.  —  Cause  of  this  experience,  a  full 
perception  of  the  conflict,  without  relief.  Tendencies  to  it  in 
John  Foster.  Its  full  development.  Its  succession  by  the 
sixth  experience.  A  full  account  of  this  experience  deferred 
till  the  reconciliation  has  been  presented, 184 — 191 


VIII  SUMMARY    VIEW    OF   THE   CONTENTS. 

BOOK    III. 

THE  RECONCILIATION  IN  ITS  PRINCIPLES. 

CHAPTER  I.  —  THE  PROBLEM  PROPOSED.  —  The  suggestion  of  a 
possible  mode  of  reconciliation.  The  great  importance  even  of 
this.  Incidental  evidence  involved, 192 — 195 

CHAPTER  EL  —  METHOD  OF  PROCEDURE.  —  Two  supposable 
modes  of  solution.  The  adoption  of  the  second, 196 — 198 

CHAPTER  III.  —  STATE  OF  THE  HUMAN  MIND,  AND  CONDITIONS 
OF  THE  PROBLEM. — Power  of  illogical  influences.  Character 
of  the  persons  addressed, 199 — 202 

CHAPTER  IV. — THE  ESSENTIALS  OF  HARMONY. — Retention  of 
all  the  facts  of  the  system.  Full  scope  for  Christian  emotions 
and  experience.  The  presentation  of  a  perfect  character  of 
God, 203—210 

CHAPTER  V.  — THE  MISADJUSTMENT.  —  Great  power  of  a  small 
misadjustment.  The  misadjustment  stated.  Its  extensive  and 
injurious  influence.  It  is  a  mere  assumption, 211 — 220 

CHAPTER  VI.  — THE  READJUSTMENT.  — It  retains  all  the  facts. 
It  concedes  all  the  principles.  It  harmonizes  the  combatants. 
Causes  of  the  rejection  of  this  view, 221 — 226 

CHAPTERVII.  —  THE  SYSTEM  AS  ADJUSTED. — It  gives  a  rad 
ical  view  of  human  depravity,  and  averts  Pelagian  tendencies. 
It  averts  the  degradation  of  free  agency.  It  vindicates  the 
measures  of  God.  It  elevates  our  conceptions  of  new-created 
minds.  It  gives  a  rational  view  of  the  kingdom  of  fallen 
spirits, 227—233 

CHAPTER  VIH.  — THE  KINGDOM  OF  FALLEN  SPIRITS.  — Import 
ance  of  this  part  of  the  general  system.  Effects  of  the  read 
justment.  The  number  of  fallen  beings  not  increased,  but 
diminished,  by  the  system  of  this  world.  Relations  to  the 
antiquity  of  the  earth.  Statements  from  Dr.  Hitchcock  ;  J. 
P.  Smith  ;  Babbage.  Elevated  point  of  vision, 234 — 241 

CHAPTER  IX.  —  BRIEF  SUMMARY  OF  THE  WHOLE  CASE. — 
Original  state  of  all  new-created  beings.  The  entrance  of  evil. 
The  course  of  events.  The  final  results, 242 — 245 

CHAPTER  X.  — A  PRESUMPTION  REBUTTED.  —It  is  alleged  that 
this  view  has  been  considered  and  found  insufficient.  The 
allegation  denied.  The  case  stated.  Illustration  from  the 
course  of  opinon  with  reference  to  the  Copernican  system. 
Extract  from  Whewell, 246—252 


BOOK    IV. 

HISTORICAL  OUTLINE   AND   ESTIMATE   OF  THE   CONFLICT. 

CHAPTER  I.  — GENERAL  OUTLINE.  — Importance  and  design  of 
the  discussions  of  other  ages.  Importance  of  a  full  history  of 
this  conflict.  Sources  of  it.  Outline  of  the  field, 253 — 258 


SUMMARY  VIEW   OF  THE   CONTENTS.  IX 

CHAPTER  II.  —  THE  POINT  OF  VISION.  —  Intellectual  power  and 
greatness  of  Augustine.  Relations  of  present  discussions  to 
him.  Views  of  Prof.  Shedd,  E.  H.  Sears,  and  others,  concern 
ing  him.  He  is  the  point  of  vision, 259 — 264 

CHAPTER  III.  —  THEOLOGICAL  SPECULATIONS  BEFORE  AUGUS 
TINE.  —  State  of  things  immediately  after  the  apostles.  Char 
acter  of  the  first  assaults  on  Christianity.  The  principles  of 
honor  and  right  become  predominant.  Tendencies  to  super 
ficial  views  of  depravity  resulted.  Theology  of  the  Greek 
Church.  Pelagius  logically  carried  out  existing  tendencies  to 
dangerous  results, 265—277 

CHAPTER  IV.  —  THE  MOUNTAIN-TOP  ;  OR,  AUGUSTINE  AND  HIS 
EXPERIENCE.  —  The  necessity  of  a  reaction.  Augustine  the 
providential  agent.  Not  a  mere  logician.  His  depth  of  feeling 
and  Christian  experience.  Not  a  mystic  in  a  bad  sense,  .  .  .  278 — 288 

CHAPTER  V.  —  AUGUSTINE'S  PRINCIPLES  OF  EQUITY  AND  HONOR. 

—  His  elevated  views  of  new-created   minds.     His  high   de 
mands  in  their  behalf.     The  extensive  influence  of  these  views 
in  subsequent  ages.     His  deep  views  of  depravity.     The  inev 
itable  conflict, 289—296 

CHAPTER  VI.  —  AUGUSTINE'S  THEORY  OF  RECONCILIATION. — 
A  forfeiture  of  rights  before  birth.  A  kind  of  preexistence. 
Real  preexistence  rejected.  His  theory  was,  that  all  men  ex 
isted  and  acted  in  Adam  in  a  common  nature, 297 — 301 

CHAPTER  VII.  —  RESPONSE  OF  THE  HUMAN  MIND  TO  THE  THE 
ORY  OF  AUGUSTINE.  —  The  fact  of  a  forfeiture  generally 
accepted.  His  solution  ultimately  and  generally  rejected. 
Various  other  contradictory  solutions.  The  problem  absurd 
and  impossible,  without  real  preexistence, 302 — 307 

CHAPTER  VIII.  —  DIFFERENT  MODES  OF  SOLUTION  CONSIDERED. 

—  Augustine's   solution   rejected   by   the  Princeton   divines. 
Two  forms  of  the  theory  of  federal  headship.     Prof.  Shedd 
resorts  to  a  real  self-determined  choice  or  governing  purpose 
before  consciousness,  and  in  Adam.     Theory  of  Edwards  is  the 
personal  identity  of  all  men  with  Adam.     Views  of  Haldane. 
Exposition  of  Augustine  by  Odo  of  Tournay,  and  Anselm,  .    .  308 — 323 

CHAPTER  IX.  —  DISQUIET  OF  THE  HUMAN  MIND. — The  ortho 
dox  principles  of  equity  and  honor  very  elevated.  The  pres 
ent  state  of  man  conceded  to  be  indefensible,  except  on  the 
ground  of  a  forfeiture  of  rights.  All  solutions  of  the  problem 
of  forfeiture  unsatisfactory.  Final  result,  the  idea  of  forfeiture 
rejected.  In  this  no  relief  is  found, 324 — 331 

CHAPTER  X.  —  FIRST  RESULT  OF  DENYING  A  FORFEITURE  BE 
FORE  BIRTH.  —  Pelagianism  the  direct  and  logical  result.  Its 
first  development.  Its  reappearance  in  various  subsequent 
ages.  Degradation  of  free  agency  its  result.  Elevation 
and  truth  of  the  principles  which  led  to  these  inauspicious 
results.  Julian  of  Eclanum,  Dr.  Channing,  Whelpley,  and 
J.  Taylor,  alike  contend  for  these  principles,  and  so  far  are 
correct  and  unanswerable, 332 — 339 

CHAPTER  XI.  —  SECOND  RESULT  OF  DENYING  A  FORFEITURE 


SUMMARY   VIEW    OF   THE   CONTENTS. 

BEFORE  BIRTH.  —  Resolution  of  human  depravity  through 
Adam  into  divine  sovereignty.  Cause  of  this  modification  of 
orthodoxy.  Its  chief  development  in  New  England.  Hopkins 
leads  the  way.  The  younger  Edwards,  Dwight,  Emmons,  and 
the  modern  New  England  divines,  follow.  It  does  not  give  the 
desired  relief.  Views  of  Dr.  Watts.  Of  the  Old  School  divines. 
Of  Unitarians, 340—348 

CHAPTER  XH.  —  OTHER  INEFFECTUAL  EFFORTS  FOR  RELIEF.  — 
Course  adopted  by  the  Semipelagians  and  the  Roman  Cath 
olic  Church.  Course  pursued  by  Arminius.  Wesley  and  the 
Methodist  divines.  The  theory  of  a  forfeiture  before  birth  is 
still  the  basis  of  their  systems,  and  is  not  properly  solved  or 
defended.  Calvinists,  Lutherans,  Arminians  and  Romanists, 
here  stand  on  common  ground, 349 — 355 

CHAPTER  XIII.  —  ESTIMATE  OF  THE  CONFLICT  —  It  has  sprung 
from  the  honorable  feelings  of  man,  and  the  experience  of 
Christians  of  deep  piety  ;  and  yet  has  either  given  superficial 
views  of  human  depravity,  or  else  obscured  the  glory  of  God. 
The  present  state  of  things.  Prospects  of  the  future,  .  .  .  356 — 362 


BOOK    V. 

THE   ARGUMENT. 

CHAPTER  I.  —  THE  MODE  OF  PROCEEDING. — Question  at  issue, 
the  truth  of  preexistence.  Proof  of  the  validity  of  arguments 
from  the  facts  of  the  system.  The  necessity  of  first  consider 
ing  the  alleged  testimony  of  the  Bible.  Basis  of  the  common 
doctrine,  Rom.  5  :  12 — 19, 363 — 367 

CHAPTER  II.  —  GENERAL  VIEW  OF  THE  VARIOUS  INTERPRETA 
TIONS  OP  ROM.  5  :  12 — 19. — Vast  and  extended  influence  of 
the  passage.  Fundamental  idea  of  the  common  interpretation. 
Various  theories  of  the  fall  in  Adam.  No  exposition  of  uni 
versal  authority, 368 — 373 

CHAPTER  m. — TRUE  INTERPRETATION  OF  ROM.  5  :  12 — 19.  — 
The  sense  of  the  passage  is  judicial,  as  the  Old  School  divines 
contend.  The  death  spoken  of  is  natural  death,  as  the  primi 
tive  church  contended.  The  sequence  is  merely  typical,  and 
not  causative.  Explanation  of  this  statement, 374 — 378 

CHAPTER  IV. — USE  OF  LANGUAGE  IN  DESCRIBING  SEQUENCES 
OF  APPARENT  CAUSATION.  —  They  are  denoted  by  the  same 
forms  of  speech  which  are  used  to  denote  real  causation.  This 
mode  of  speech  natural  and  universal.  Case  of  miracles.  Ex 
tract  from  Dr.  Smalley.  Use  of  illustrative  comparisons,  .  .  379 — 383 

CHAPTER  V.  —  USE  OF  LANGUAGE  IN  DESCRIBING  APPARENT 
CAUSATION  IN  TYPES.  —  Explanation  of  sequences  merely  typ 
ical.  Law  of  language,  as  before  stated.  Cases.  The  sprink 
ling  of  the  blood  of  the  paschal  lamb.  Atonement  by  sacrifices. 


SUMMARY    VIEW    OF   THE    CONTENTS.  XI 

Atonement  by  burning  incense.  Healing  by  the  brazen  ser 
pent.  Review  of  positions, 384 — 392 

CHAPTER  VI.  —  APPLICATION  OF  THE  PRECEDING  PRINCIPLES 
TO  ROM.  5:  12 — 19.  —  The  judicial  sense  is  authorized  by 
Chrysostom,  Theophylact,  Grotius,  Storr,  Bloomfield,  Knapp 
and  others.  Tholuck  and  Stuart  concede  that  the  words  will 
admit  of  it.  According  to  the  preceding  argument,  the  sequence 
is  merely  typical.  The  death  is  merely  natural.  Illustration 
of  the  type.  Results, 393—398 

CHAPTER  VII.  —  APPEAL  TO  AUTHORITIES.  —  The  judicial 
sense  excludes  the  New  School  interpretation.  Argument  of 
Prof.  Hodge  and  others  in  favor  of  that  sense.  Result,  it  is  not 
asserted  in  the  word  of  God  that  the  sinfulness  of  man  was 
caused  by  the  sin  of  Adam.  Virtual  coincidence  on  this  point 
of  Dr.  Hodge  and  Dr.  Emmons, 399 — 410 

CHAPTER  VHI.  —  IMPORT  OF  THE  WORD  DEATH,  IN  ROM.  5: 
12 — 19. — Its  import  is  natural  death.  Argument.  Author 
ity  of  the  Greek  Church.  Internal  evidence.  The  facts  of 
the  Old  Testament.  Argument  from  the  antithesis  refuted. 
The  sequence  is  merely  typical,  whether  we  adopt  the  judicial 
sense,  or  that  of  the  New  School  divines, 411 — 418 

CHAPTER  IX.  —  ADDITIONAL  EVIDENCE.  —  Analogy  of  the 
early  types  with  which  this  is  connected.  Appropriateness 
and  sublimity  of  the  view.  Root  of  the  common  errors.  Genius 
and  spirit  of  Paul  demand  this  vieAV.  Moral  arguments  irre 
sistible,  419—423 

CHAPTER  X.  —  CASE  OF  MELCIHSEDEK.  —  A  striking  illustra 
tion  of  the  laws  of  typical  interpretation  involved  in  this  argu 
ment.  Paul  speaks  according  to  the  appearance  of  things, 
and  not  according  to  the  reality.  Yet  he  uses  the  language 
of  reality.  Authority  of  Calvin,  Barnes,  Stuart,  Bloomfield 
and  others.  True  theory  of  typical  language.  Power  of  Rom. 
5  :  12—19,  thus  viewed, 424—429 

CHAPTER  XI.  —  THE  COMPLETION  OP  THE  PICTURE. — Decline 
and  revival  of  typical  interpretation.  The  habits  of  Paul's 
mind.  The  sentence  of  death.  The  case  of  Adam.  That  of 
his  posterity.  The  antitype.  Objections  refuted.  Paraphrase 
of  the  passage.  Analogous  typical  comparisons, 430 — 438 

CHAPTER  XII. — THE  ARGUMENT  REINFORCED.  —  General  rule. 
The  type  is  in  the  natural  sphere;  the  antitype,  in  the  spiritual. 
Appeal  to  Scripture.  Rule  of  Eairbairn.  To  violate  this  rule 
overloads  the  type,  and  destroys  the  truth  of  the  comparison. 
It  also  violates  all  our  ideas  of  justice,  and  causes  a  reaction. 
The  final  result,  and  appeal, 439 — 447 

CHAPTER  XIII. — SURVEY  OF  THE  GENERAL  ARGUMENT. — The 
deepest  foundations  of  our  religious  belief.  Principles  applied 
to  the  being  of  a  God  ;  the  evidences  of  revelation  ;  the  New 
tonian  system.  The  same  mode  of  reasoning  proves  preexist- 
ence.  Illustration  in  a  single  line  of  reasoning.  Auxiliary 
arguments  from  the  failure  of  all  the  common  theories,  and  the 
inadequacy  of  the  cause  assigned  for  effects.  Sufficiency  of 


XII  SUMMARY   VIEW    OF   THE    CONTENTS. 

preexistence  illustrated  by  the  statements  of  the  Princeton 

divines  and  Prof.  Stuart.  Arguments  of  Julius  Mailer,  .  .448 — 472 

CHAPTER  XIV.  — THE  ORIGIN  OP  EVIL.  — Allegation  of  Dr. 
Woods  against  preexistence,  that  it  merely  shifts  the  difficulty, 
but  does  not  remove  it.  Reply.  Further  allegation  that  God 
has  the  entire  control  of  all  the  feelings  and  acts  of  his  crea 
tures.  Reply —  a  temporary  limitation  of  control  is  implied  in 
the  greatness  of  God  and  his  system,  and  the  limited  nature  of 
created  minds.  This  view  honors  God,  and  accords  with  the 
Bible.  It  explains  the  origin  of  evil,  the  need  of  development, 
and  the  origin  of  the  present  system.  Dr.  Woods  is  obliged  to 
concede  the  principle,  and  does  so  in  fact.  The  revealed  char 
acter  of  God  proves  it, 473 — 488 

CHAPTER  XV.  —  ARGUMENT  FROM  THE  SYSTEM.  —  Outline  of 
the  argument.  Preexistence  unites  in  a  sublime  system  the 
great  scriptural  facts,  and  harmonizes  the  action  of  all  the 
parts.  Facts  to  be  united.  The  common  theories  fail.  A 
true  system  of  the  universe  much  needed.  Essentials  of  such 
a  system.  Common  views  of  the  church.  A  more  full  view 
essential.  Statement  of  her  real  place  in  the  system.  Her 
work.  Her  worth  to  God  and  to  the  universe.  Future  in 
crease  of  the  universe.  Analogy  of  Marriage.  Hypothesis 
of  Bellamy.  View  of  Pollok  and  of  Chalmers.  Inadequacy 
of  all  other  systems.  Point  of  the  argument.  Discrimina 
tions,  489—516 

CHAPTER  XVI.  — TFIE  MATERIAL  SYSTEM.  —  Importance  of 
its  relations  to  doctrine  and  practice.  Errors  caused  by  false 
views  of  it.  Preexistence  eradicates  them.  Tendency  of  the 
common  doctrine  to  Gnosticism, 517 — 522 

CHAPTER  XVII.  —  RESULTS  AND  PRACTICAL  TENDENCIES. — 
1.  To  rescue  Christianity  from  its  present  perilous  position, 
and  to  restore  to  it  its  legitimate  power.  2.  To  give  dignity 
and  elevation  to  the  argument,  and  certainty  to  the  conclu 
sions  derived.  3.  To  expose  the  verbal  and  superficial  nature 
of  alleged  scriptural  objections.  4.  To  produce  sympathy 
with  the  whole  spirit  of  the  Bible.  5.  To  relieve  difficulties, 
and  introduce  sympathy  and  mutual  confidence  into  future 
discussions.  6.  To  avert  Pelagianism,  and  to  produce  a 
deeper  Christian  experience.  Favorable  omens  in  the  work 
of  E.  H.  Sears,  and  in  the  recent  rejection  of  Pelagianism  by 
Unitarians.  Dissent  from  some  of  his  views.  General  con 
cessions  as  to  the  good  tendencies  of  the  doctrine  of  preex 
istence.  Origin  of  the  present  state  of  things  from  ancient 
ecclesiastical  Gnosticism.  7.  Beneficial  effects  of  the  doctrine 
of  preexistence  will  disclose  themselves  in  all  departments  of 
life,  .523—552 


INTRODUCTION. 

NATURE    OF    THE    CONFLICT.      END    AND    COMPASS 
OF   THE    WORK. 

OF  the  heroes  and  the  conflicts  of  war  I  do  not  propose 
to  speak.  It  were,  indeed,  a  more  exciting  theme.  The 
vivid  delineation  of  floating  banners,  flowing  plumes,  gor 
geous  apparel,  glittering  armor,  and  the  stately  march  of 
embattled  squadrons,  agreeably  stimulates  and  excites  the 
imagination.  The  fierce  onset  of  contending  hosts,  and  the 
unutterable  horrors  of  the  conflict,  arouse  the  deepest 
emotions  of  the  soul. 

A  narrative  of  the  conflicts  of  minds  has  not  these  advan 
tages  for  popular  effect.  Such  conflicts  do  not  appeal  to  the 
senses,  nor  stimulate  the  imagination ;  nor  is  it  easy  to 
create,  with  respect  to  them,  a  popular  excitement  which 
shall  be  powerful  and  all-pervading.  Nevertheless,  all 
intelligent  and  thoughtful  minds  feel  in  them  an  interest 
deep  and  lasting,  even  though  it  be  less  exciting  than  that 
which  is  felt,  for  a  time,  in  the  conflicts  of  war. 

Moreover,  if  in  such  intellectual  conflicts  the  deep  and 
honorable  emotions  of  the  heart  can  be  unveiled,  the  interest 
rises,  and  often  becomes  intense. 

The  conflict  of  which  I  propose  to  write  is,  and  ever 
has  been,  in  its  deepest  recesses,  a  conflict  of  the  heart. 
Not  that  gigantic  intellectual  efforts  have  not  been  abun- 
1 


2  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

dantly  put  forth,  but  that  the  deepest  and  most  powerful 
impulses  have  ever  been  those  of  the  heart. 

It  has,  indeed,  often  assumed  a  repulsive  external  aspect. 
In  the  huge  volumes  of  the  fathers,  or  of  the  scholastic 
divines,  it  has  been  presented  in  forms  wearisome,  and 
devoid  of  the  decorations  of  rhetoric  and  the  refinements 
of  taste.  In  modern  times,  too,  the  technics  of  theology 
have  sometimes  rendered  it  mysterious  and  repulsive. 

Yet  beneath  all  this  there  has  always  rolled  a  deeper 
tide  of  pure  and  honorable  emotion  than  has  ever  flowed 
from  the  heart  of  man  on  any  other  theme ;  moreover,  the 
intellectual  aspects  of  the  conflict,  viewed  from  a  proper 
point  of  vision,  have  ever  been  majestic  and  sublime. 

The  subject  of  this  conflict  has  been  the  greatest  and 
most  affecting  that  can  interest  or  excite  the  human  mind. 
It  has  been  no  less  a  theme  than  THE  MOKAL  RENOVA 
TION  OF  MAN.  Through  a  long  course  of  centuries,  the 
Christian  world  has  been  divided  into  opposing  parties  on 
this  great  question. 

On  the  one  side  have  been  the  advocates  of  that  system 
the  peculiar  characteristic  of  which  is  the  doctrine  of  a 
supernatural  regeneration  rendered  necessary  by  the  native 
and  original  depravity  of  man,  and  effected  according  to  the 
eternal  purposes  of  a  divine  and  mysterious  sovereignty. 

This  system  has  always  been  exegetically  developed  from 
the  epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Romans,  as  its  centre  and 
strength.  At  the  same  time,  however,  all  other  parts  of 
the  word  of  God  are  appealed  to  in  its  support.  Augustine 
in  ancient,  and  Calvin  in  modern  times,  have  been  preemi 
nent  in  its  development  and  defence.  It  has  accordingly 
been  called  sometimes  Pauline,  at  others  Augustinian,  and 
at  others  Calvinistic  theology.  It  was  substantially  the 
theology  of  the  Reformers,  arid  of  the  Puritans.  By  the 


INTRODUCTION.  6 

confession  of  all,  it  has  exerted  great  power  on  the  destinies 
of  the  world.  Of  its  ablest  opponents,  some  have  honor 
ably  conceded  that  it  has  always  elevated  the  tone  of  morals 
where  it  has  prevailed.  A  leading  historian  of  this  age 
also  concedes  that  it  has  led  the  van  in  the  conflict  for 
popular  liberty.  "  For  a  century  and  a  half,"  says  Ban 
croft,  "  it  assumed  the  guardianship  of  liberty  for  the 
English  world."  "  In  Geneva,  in  Scotland,  wherever  it 
gained  dominion,  it  invoked  intelligence  for  the  people,  and 
in  every  parish  planted  the  common  school/' 

Yet,  in  all  ages,  ever  since  the  days  of  Celestius,  Julian 
and  Pelagius,  there  have  been,  in  large  numbers,  men 
highly  estimable  for  intelligence  and  benevolence,  and 
animated  by  a  strong  desire  of  urging  society  onward  in 
the  pursuit  of  moral  excellence,  who  have,  nevertheless, 
earnestly,  perseveringly  and  with  deep  emotion,  opposed 
this  system,  as  at  war  with  the  fundamental  principles  of 
honor  and  right,  and  hostile  to  the  best  interests  of  human 
ity.  In  the  wide  interval  between  these  extremes,  other  in 
termediate  parties  have  arisen,  attempting  in  various  modes, 
but  hitherto  without  success,  to  reconcile  the  combatants, 
or  in  any  other  way  to  terminate  the  conflict.  Indeed, 
these  intervening  parties  have  often  contended  violently 
among  themselves,  as  well  as  with  each  of  the  extreme 
parties.  The  long  duration  and  the  astonishing  vigor  of 
this  conflict  indicate  that  it  is  not  without  some  permanent 
and  powerful  cause.  I  propose,  if  possible,  to  discover  that 
cause,  and  to  state  a  mode  in  which  all  true  Christians  can, 
without  any  sacrifice  of  principle,  be  at  harmony  among 
themselves.  I  shall,  in  doing  this,  attempt  to  redeem  the 
first-named  system  from  a  just  liability  to  such  attacks  as 
it  has  sustained,  by  showing  that  all  of  its  fundamental 


4  CONFLICT    OF  AGES. 

elements  may  be  so  stated  and  held  as  not  to  be  inconsist 
ent  with  the  highest  principles  of  honor  and  right. 

I  propose  at  the  same  time  to  do  full  justice  to  the 
motives  and  principles  of  those  who  in  different  ages  have 
opposed  it,  as  has  been  stated.  So  far  as  their  principles  of 
honor  and  right  have  been  correct,  it  is  my  purpose  to  vin 
dicate  and  defend  them ;  at  the  same  time,  endeavoring  to 
explain  how  it  has  happened  that  they  have  been  brought 
into  conflict  with  the  system  which  they  oppose.  I  shall 
endeavor  to  point  out  a  needless  inisadjustment  of  the  parts 
of  the  system,  by  which  these  principles  have  been  brought 
into  collision  with  the  fundamental  facts  on  which  it  is 
based. 

To  effect  these  purposes,  it  will  become  necessary  to  give 
a  compendious  view  of  the  various  efforts  of  the  human 
mind,  in  different  ages,  to  remove  this  antagonism.  Such  a 
view,  properly  given,  will  exhibit  the  deep  interior  emotions, 
as  well  as  the  logical  and  philosophical  reasons,  of  that  great 
controversy  on  this  subject  which  has  so  long  existed,  and 
show  the  relations  of  its  various  parts  to  each  other. 

I  earnestly  desire,  if  possible,  so  to  effect  this  as  to 
remove  the  acerbities  of  feeling  which  have  been  caused  by 
the  controversies  of  the  present  or  of  past  ages  on  this  sub 
ject.  The  merely  logical  encounters  of  powerfully  developed 
intellectual  systems  tend  rather  to  irritation  and  alienation 
than  to  sympathy  and  confidence.  Nevertheless,  beneath 
every  benevolent  man's  intellectual  efforts  on  this  subject 
there  has  been  a  deeply  affecting  personal  experience,  which, 
if  known,  would  show,  in  a  manner  adapted  to  awaken  deep 
sympathy,  why  he  has  reasoned  as  he  has.  Indeed,  there 
is  a  great  heart,  not  only  of  natural  honor,  but,  still  more, 
of  sanctified  humanity,  which,  from  beginning  to  end,  under 
lies  this  momentous  controversy,  the  deep  workings  of 


INTRODUCTION.  5 

which  must  be  developed  and  appreciated,  before  the  contro 
versy  can  be  properly  understood.  No  honorable  mind  can 
see  these  workings  uncovered,  and  not  be  touched  with  deep* 
emotion  in  viewing  the  struggles  of  our  common  humanity, 
in  endeavoring  to  resolve  the  deepest  and  most  momentous 
problems  of  the  present  trying  and  mysterious  system. 
This  experience  I  aim  to  unfold,  and  thus,  if  I  may,  to 
create  on  all  sides  a  feeling  of  sympathy  and  mutual 
interest,  by  pointing  out  those  benevolent  and  honorable 
impulses,  and  that  regard  to  truth, —  mixed,  it  may  be,  with 
other  motives, —  by  which  the  various  parties  have  been 
actuated,  and  to  produce  a  candid  and  united  effort  to  elimi 
nate  error,  and  to  develop  the  whole  truth. 

I  am  no  less  anxious  to  do  what  I  can  to  save  the  minds 
of  future  inquirers  from  those  painful  and  exhausting  con 
flicts  to  which  such  multitudes  have  been  exposed  in  ages 
past,  by  developing  the  entire  range  of  the  controversy,  and 
sketching  the  outlines  of  the  whole  subject,  and  thus  show 
ing  that  from  the  greatest  difficulties  there  is  always  a 
possible  relief.  I  aim,  moreover,  to  evince  that,  in  order  to 
a  firm  and  decided  defence  of  the  whole  Christian  system,  it 
is  essential  that  we  no  longer  confine  the  mind  to  those  lim 
ited  views  of  the  relations  of  the  church  of  God  in  eternity 
to  his  whole  kingdom,  in  which  it  has  hitherto  generally 
moved,  but  that  we  should  rather  enter  other  and  more 
extended  fields  of  thought. 

It  is  also  my  hope  that  I  may  furnish  some  small  contri 
bution  to  aid  in  advancing  the  future  triumphs  of  the 
kingdom  of  Christ,  by  showing  the  relations  of  these  more 
extended  views  to  intellectual  philosophy,  education,  and  the 
proper  organization  of  the  ecclesiastical,  civil  and  social 
system. 

A  due  regard  to  the  friends  and  advocates  of  certain 
1* 


6  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

opinions,  which  have  been  long  received,  but  are  here  con 
troverted,  leads  me  to  say  that  the  views  which  I  have 
presented  are  not  set  forth  in  haste.  For  more  than  twenty 
years,  so  far  as  I  could  judge,  I  have  regarded  them  as 
substantially  true.  But  I  have,  nevertheless,  deemed  it  my 
duty  often  to  review  and  reconsider  them  in  the  light  of 
past  as  well  as  of  existing  controversies,  and  also  of  the 
word  and  providence  of  God.  I  have  been,  moreover,  in 
part  induced  to  defer  their  publication  till  this  time,  by  a 
respect  to  the  judgment  of  honored  friends.  Still,  however, 
my  chief  motive  for  delay  has  been  a  desire  longer  to  watch 
this  great  controversy  of  ages  in  its  present  developments, 
and  even  to  its  close, —  if,  indeed,  there  should  ever  be  a 
satisfactory  close, —  and  to  ascertain  whether  anything  new 
could  be  suggested  to  give  rational  relief  and  unity  to  the 
mind  of  the  community,  and,  at  the  same  time,  to  mature 
my  own  thoughts,  so  that,  if  possible.  I  might  avoid  a  crude 
and  ill-digested  presentation  of  so  great  a  theme. 

In  reviewing  the  opinions  of  others,  I  have  uniformly 
felt  that  men  who  have  honestly  labored  to  elucidate  so  dif 
ficult  and  trying  a  subject  deserve  sympathy  and  respect, 
and  never  severity,  much  less  ridicule,  even  if  their  results 
may  seem  to  us  in  many  respects  unreasonable  or  untrue. 
In  this  way  only  can  a  subject  so  difficult  be  treated,  with 
any  rational  hope  of  benefiting  all  whom  it  concerns.  May 
I  not  hope  that,  if  any  shall  consider  it  their  duty  to  review 
or  to  controvert  any  of  my  opinions,  they  will  follow  the 
same  general  principles  ? 

Certainly,  if  any  of  my  views  are  false,  or  any  of  my 
arguments  unsound,  they  can  be  thoroughly  exposed,  and 
refuted  with  calmness,  dignity,  candor  and  kindness.  Such 
honorable  treatment  is  what  I  expect,  if  any  effort  shall  be 
made  to  refute  my  views.  But  if,  instead  of  this  (which  I 


INTRODUCTION.  7 

will  not  anticipate),  my  arguments  should  be  encountered 
with  invidious  remarks,  or  ridicule,  or  appeals  to  prejudice, 
then  there  will  be  sufficient  reason  to  conclude,  and  all 
candid  judges  will  conclude,  that  there  is  a  conscious  want 
of  anything  better  with  which  they  can  be  opposed. 

Is  it  not,  however,  to  be  hoped  and  expected  that  God,  at 
length,  will  give  to  his  people  such  faith  in  himself,  as  the 
only  perfect  defender  of  the  truth,  that  they  will  practically 
believe  that  no  degree  whatever  of  sinful  feeling  can  be  of 
any  avail,  in  defending  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible ;  nay, 
that,  so  far  a,s  it  exists,  it  separates  the  soul  from  the  great 
source  of  life  and  of  truth,  biases  its  judgment,  and  destroys 
the  keenness  and  discrimination  of  its  perceptions  ? 

Is  not  the  history  of  the  church,  in  all  ages,  full  of  warn 
ings  on  this  point?  How  prone  is  depraved  humanity, 
imperfectly  sanctified,  to  be  influenced  by  such  considera 
tions  and  emotions  as  God  abhors  !  As  hating  sin,  and 
infinitely  exalted  above  its  pollutions,  He  cannot  but  regard 
with  utter  repulsion  any  remaining  pollutions  of  his  people. 
He  is  entirely  free  from  the  narrowness  of  local  interests, 
from  envy,  from  rivalry,  from  ambition,  from  sectarian 
prejudice,  from  national  bias,  and  from  the  errors  of  the 
age.  He  is  light.  He  dwells  in  light ;  and  the  essential 
element  of  that  light  is  love.  How,  then,  can  he  who  walks 
in  the  darkness  of  sin  commune  with  Him  ? 

He  has  assured  us,  moreover,  that  into  this  light  his 
church,  at  length,  shall  come.  To  her  it  shall  be  given  to 
put  on  fine  linen,  clean  and  white,  which  is  the  righteous 
ness  of  saints.  To  her  shall  be  given  that  full  knowledge  of 
God  which  is  implied  in  the  marriage  supper  of  the  Lamb. 
To  her  it  shall  be  said,  "Arise  !  shine  !  for  thy  light  is  come, 
and  the  glory  of  the  Lord  is  risen  upon  thee  !  "  To  her  it 
shall  be  said,  li  The  sun  shall  be  no  more  thy  light  by  day ; 


8  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

neither  for  brightness  shall  the  moon  give  light  unto  thee ; 
but  the  Lord  shall  be  unto  thee  an  everlasting  light,  arid 
thy  God  thy  glory.  Thy  sun  shall  no  more  go  down ; 
neither  shall  thy  moon  withdraw  itself;  for  the  Lord  shall 
be  thine  everlasting  light,  and  the  days  of  thy  mourning 
shall  be  ended." 

If  such  things  are  near  at  hand,  may  we  not  hope,  or. 
rather,  believe,  that  God  will  give  to  all  of  his  own  people, 
who  may  engage  in  this  and  other  investigations,  so  much 
of  his  Spirit  that  they  shall  walk  in  his  light  and  dwell  in 
his  love  ? 


BOOK  I. 

THE   CONFLICT   IN   ITS   PRINCIPLES. 


CHAPTER    I. 

THE     CASE     STATED. 

IF  into  a  community  but  little  skilled  in  the  laws  of 
nature  and  the  principles  of  mechanics  a  steamship  were 
to  be  introduced,  and  if  it  were  stated,  as  the  common 
traditional  direction  of  mechanics  and  philosophers,  that  the 
wheels  should  be  so  adjusted  that  they  would  revolve  in 
opposite  directions,  it  may  be  that  the  ignorance  of  the  men 
of  that  community,  and  the  force  of  traditional  authority, 
would  induce  them,  at  first,  to  comply  with  the  direction. 
But  if,  as  would  surely  be  the  case,  it  was  found  by  experi 
ment  that,  when  the  wheels  so  adjusted  were  put  in  motion, 
the  boat,  so  far  from  obeying  her  rudder,  or  taking  an 
onward  course,  would  do  nothing  but  revolve  incessantly 
round,  without  progress, —  and,  moreover,  that  her  whole 
frame  was  unnaturally  wrenched  and  strained  by  this 
method  of  procedure,  and  that,  meantime,  she  had  no  power 
so  to  resist  the  winds  and  currents  that  they  would  not 
drift  her  wheresoever  they  would, —  then,  in  all  probability, 
the  men  in  that  community  w/ould  repudiate  the  traditional 


10  CONFLICT    OF    AGES. 

direction  which  they  had  received,  as  inconsistent  with  the 
necessary  and  immutable  laws  of  mechanics,  and  introducing 
discord  and  conflict  into  the  system  to  which  it  was  applied. 
And  if,  on  adjusting  the  wheels  so  that  they  would  both 
revolve  in  the  same  direction,  it  was  found  that  the  boat 
moved  straight  on  in  obedience  to  her  rudder,  and  was  able 
to  resist  the  power  of  winds  and  currents,  they  would  feel 
abundantly  confirmed  in  their  conviction  of  the  essential 
falsehood  of  the  traditional  direction ;  nor  could  any  amount 
of  authority  avail  against  this  practical  demonstration,  taken 
from  the  working  of  the  system  itself. 

An  argument  of  the  same  kind,  and  of  no  less  power, 
would  rationally  arise  from  the  practical  workings  of  a  sys 
tem  of  theology,  against  any  traditional  adjustment  of  its 
parts,  if  it  had  been  found,  on  trial,  to  cause  its  main  mov 
ing  powers,  in  like  manner,  to  work  against  each  other, — 
thus  introducing  perpetual  internal  conflict  into  the  very 
vitals  of  the  system. 

No  question  can  be  more  interesting  or  important  than 
whether  there  is  good  reason  to  believe  that  such  a  tradi 
tional  misadjustment  has  been  introduced  into  the  current 
system  of  Christianity ;  and  whether,  in  consequence  of  it, 
the  main  moving  powers  of  the  system  have  been  made, 
from  age  to  age,  to  work  against  each  other ;  and  whether 
at  this  hour  there  is  an  internal  conflict  in  the  system,  which 
no  wit  or  skill  of  man  can  remove  or  overcome,  till  the  tra 
ditional  misadjustment  from  which  it  springs  has  been  repu 
diated.  For,  if  such  be  the  fact,  never,  till  the  misadjust 
ment  is  removed,  will  the  moving  powers  of  the  system 
work  together, —  never,  till  then,  will  the  internal  conflict 
cease.  Whether  such  is  the  fact  is  the  question  to  be  con 
sidered. 


CHAPTER    II. 

PRESUMPTIVE     ARGUMENT. 

THAT  this  is  the  case,  we  may  derive  a  presumptive 
proof  from  the  history  of  certain  recent  wide-spread  theo 
logical  controversies  among  ourselves.  No  controversy  in 
the  theological  world  has  excited  a  deeper  interest  among 
those  who  are  reputed  —  and  that  justly  —  the  decided 
friends  of  orthodoxy,  than  that  between  those  who  are 
familiarly  called,  in  the  Congregational  and  Presbyterian 
churches,  "the  Old  School'1  and  "the  New  School" 
divines.  These  terms  have,  in  themselves,  little  signifi- 
cancy.  Their  import  will  be  more  fully  disclosed  as  we 
proceed.  It  is  sufficient  here  to  remark,  that  New  Eng 
land  has  been  the  great  fountain-head  of  the  new  divinity, 
and  that  the  theological  seminary  at  Princeton  has  been 
conceded;  to  be  the  strongest  citadel  of  the  old  theology. 
The  two  denominations  among  whom  this  conflict  has  been 
most  fully  developed  have  exerted,  from  the  beginning,  a 
very  powerful  influence  in  forming  the  character  and  shap 
ing  the  destinies  of  this  nation.  The  influence  of  the  con 
troversy  has  also  extended  to  other  denominations.  If,  then, 
we  view  our  relations  as  a  nation  to  the  world,  no  one  can 
properly  say  that  this  is  merely  a  local  controversy.  Affect 
ing  deeply,  as  it  does,  the  religious  interests  of  this  nation, 
it  affects,  also,  those  of  the  world.  No  one  who  is  famil 
iarly  acquainted  with  those  engaged  in  this  controversy  can 


12  CONFLICT    OF    AGES. 

deny  that  the  great  body  on  both  sides  are  eminently  pious, 
devoted,  laborious,  useful  men.  They  profess,  alike;  to  be 
followers  of  the  great  reformers,  and  to  regard  with  peculiar 
favor  the  system  of  doctrines  developed  by  Calvin.  They 
are,  alike,  the  antagonists  of  formalism,  and  of  ecclesiastical 
despotism,  and  the  advocates  of  spiritual  religion,  of  colle 
giate  and  popular  education,  of  revivals  of  religion,  and  of 
the  benevolent  enterprises  of  the  age.  There  is  no  good 
reason,  therefore,  why  they  should  not  have  loved  each 
other  with  a  pure  heart  fervently,  and  no  reason,  so  far  as 
the  great  fundamentals  of  doctrine  and  practice  are  con 
cerned,  why  they  should  not  have  been  perfectly  joined 
together  in  one  mind  and  in  one  judgment.  Brotherly  love, 
in  its  elevated  forms,  is  one  of  the  happiest  experiences  of 
the  human  mind  ;  nor  is  there  any  the  manifestation  of 
which  is  more  honorable  to  God,  or  more  powerful  to  pro 
duce  conviction  of  the  divine  origin  of  Christianity.  How 
much,  then,  might  these  Christian  brethren  have  enjoyed, 
how  much  might  they  have  honored  God,  how  much  might 
they  have  blessed  the  world,  if  they  had  been  united  with 
the  full  power  and  fervor  of  common  convictions  and  broth 
erly  love ! 

And  yet,  instead  of  this,  for  years  there  has  been  between 
them  an  incessant  controversy.  In  it,  an  incredible  amount 
of  intellect,  emotion  and  energy,  has  been  expended.  Each 
party  has  been  filled  with  alarm  at  the  dangerous  tenden 
cies,  or  alleged  pernicious  influence,  of  some  fondly- cherished 
principles  of  the  other,  as  threatening  either  to  subvert 
the  gospel  or  to  destroy  its  power.  They  have,  therefore, 
conscientiously  put  forth  great  efforts  to  destroy  the  influ 
ence  and  arrest  the  progress  of  each  other.  As  a  natural 
and  necessary  result,  in  the  course  of  this  controversy  there 
has  been,  in  various  ways,  a  vast  amount  of  mental  suffer- 


PRESUMPTIVE    ARGUMENT.  13 

ing.  Pious  men,  deeply  devoted  to  God,  and  earnestly 
laboring  to  effect  the  moral  renovation  and  salvation  of  their 
fellow-men,  have  been  cut  to  the  heart  by  a  keen  sense  of 
injustice,  when  suspicions  have  been  created  and  dissemi 
nated,  or  even  direct  charges  made,  that  they  were  unsound 
in  the  faith,  and  dangerous  heresiarchs.  Others  have  been 
pained  and  irritated  by  the  charge  of  holding  gross  and 
exploded  absurdities,  dishonorable  to  God  and  ruinous  to 
man.  The  amount  of  influence  thus  employed  by  good  men 
to  neutralize  each  other's  power  has  been  immense,  nor  has 
it  failed  to  produce  its  natural  effects.  The  internal  strug 
gles  and  convulsions  thus  produced  in  this  large  body  of 
churches  have  wasted  an  amount  of  energy  great  almost 
beyond  imagination.  The  Presbyterian  church  has  been 
twice  rent  asunder.  The  New  England  Congregational 
churches,  incapable,  by  reason  of  their  organization,  of  such 
a  division,  have  yet  been,  in  fact,  thrown  into  opposing  par 
ties,  and  agitated  and  torn  by  incessant  and  painful  strife. 

Meantime,  in  the  eyes  of  intelligent  spectators,  riot 
familiar  with  theological  debates,  religion  itself  has  been 
dishonored.  How  can  it  be  otherwise,  when  such  eminent 
men  as  have  figured  in  these  unhappy  controversies,  on  both 
sides, —  men  who  have  had  no  superiors  in  the  land, —  have 
not  only  been  arrayed  in  strife  against  each  other,  but  have 
brought  against  each  other  charges  of  the  most  serious  and 
injurious  kind?  We  have,  by  custom,  become  familiar 
with  this  state  of  things,  and  do  not  at  once  apprehend  its 
unspeakable  evils.  But,  if  we  could  suppose  entire  confi 
dence  and  ardent  brotherly  love  to  have  existed  for  the  last 
century  among  the  leading  minds  of  these  churches,  and 
all  their  energies  consecrated  to  the  great  departments  of 
education,  religious  revivals,  and  benevolent  enterprise,  who 
can  conceive  how  much  greater  the  impulse  that  had  been 


14  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

given  to  the  cause  of  God,  not  only  in  our  own  land,  but 
throughout  the  whole  world  ! 

And  when  these  intelligent  spectators  ask,  what  are  the 
points  on  which  these  good  men  are  so  divided,  and  in  view 
of  which  they  expend  so  much  energy  in  destroying  each 
other's  power,  it  is  very  hard  to  give  a  reply  which  shall 
be  brief,  intelligible  and  satisfactory  to  the  common  mind. 
No  one  or  two  great,  prominent,  definite,  intelligible  scrip 
tural  doctrines  can  be  stated  by  which  a  fundamental  line  of 
distinction  can  be  drawn  between  them.  They  profess,  in 
fact,  to  hold  the  same  great  revealed  doctrines,  and  to  differ 
only  in  certain  modes  of  stating,  explaining,  and  defending 
them. 

Nor  are  developments  of  this  kind  limited  to  the  last  fifty 
or  one  hundred  years,  nor  to  the  Presbyterian  and  Congre 
gational  churches  of  this  land.  The  controversy  has  not, 
indeed,  always  been  developed  under  its  present  names,  nor 
with  the  same  extent  and  system.  But  its  essential  ele 
ments  have  existed  —  as  I  shall  soon  show  —  as  far  back  as 
the  third  or  fourth  century  since  Christ,  and  have  been 
developed,  in  various  forms,  in  each  succeeding  century,  to 
this  day,  and  in  almost,  if  not  quite,  every  Christian  body. 

It  has  been,  moreover,  in  all  ages,  as  it  is  now,  a  contro 
versy  among  sincere  Christians.  It  is,  in  this  respect,  en 
tirely  unlike  the  atheistic,  pantheistic,  infidel,  and  other 
controversies,  in  which  all  real  Christians  are  on  one  side. 
But  by  this  controversy,  in  all  ages,  as  now,  real  Christians 
are  divided  against  real  Christians. 

It  is,  also,  worthy  of  special  note,  that  this  is  a  contro 
versy  in  which  no  permanent  and  radical  progress  has  as 
yet  been  made  towards  a  final  settlement.  Good  men  are 
at  this  day  as  really  and  as  thoroughly  divided  against  good 
men  as  they  ever  were.  At  one  time,  the  New  School 


PRESUMPTIVE    ARGUMENT.  15 

Theology  (so  called),  proceeding  from  New  England,  seems 
to  be  carrying  all  before  it  in  the  Presbyterian  church. 
Then  there  is  a  division,  and  a  combination,  not  only  with 
out,  but  also  within  New  England,  to  react  upon  it,  and  to 
restore  the  Old  School  theology  to  its  original  power.  So 
has  it  been,  in  other  ages  and  climes.  Action  and  reaction 
have  followed  each  other,  but  no  substantial  progress  towards 
a  termination  of  the  controversy  has  ever  been  made. 

Until  at  some  future  time  this  controversy  shall  cease,  no 
one  can  tell  how  much  it  has  weakened  and  paralyzed  the 
whole  church  of  God,  and  fatally  destroyed  its  onward  and 
impulsive  power.  Like  the  ship  supposed,  she  has  obeyed 
no  rudder  of  universally-admitted  principle,  but  has  drifted 
at  the  mercy  of  the  winds  and  currents  of  controversy. 

And  yet  no  serious  suspicion  seems  ever  to  have  been 
awakened,  that,  after  all,  the  difficulty  lies,  not  in  the  alleged 
points  of  difference,  but  in  some  false  adjustment,  in  which 
both  parties  agree,  and  by  which  the  great  moving  powers 
of  the  system  have  been  made  to  act  against  each  other ;  and 
that,  until  this  false  adjustment  is  removed,  there  is  a  neces 
sary  and  inevitable  conflict  in  the  system  itself. 

Is  it  not  time,  then,  to  consider  this  aspect  of  the  case  ? 
Is  not  such  a  thing  supposable?  And  does  not  this  endless 
conflict  of  good  men,  with  no  progress,  and  no  result  but  to 
cripple  and  neutralize  each  other,  render  the  supposition  in 
no  small  degree  probable? 

Such  probability,  however,  is  not  all  the  evidence  that 
the  case  demands,  nor,  happily,  is  it  all  that  exists.  It  is 
possible,  not  only  to  show  what  are  the  two  great  moving 
powers  of  Christianity,  but,  also,  to  prove  that  they  have 
been  so,  adjusted  that  they  do,  in  fact,  work  against  each 
other,  and  thus  produce  necessary  division  and  conflict  in 
the  system.  Of  this  it  now  remains  to  adduce  the  proof. 


CHAPTER    III. 

THE     MOVING     POWERS     OF     CHRISTIANITY. 

BY  the  moving  powers  of  Christianity,  I  mean  those 
truths  which  in  practice  are  of  fundamental  importance  in 
the  great  work  of  moral  renovation.  Moral  renovation  is 
the  great  practical  end  for  which  the  system  of  Christianity 
is  designed,  and  in  which  it  terminates.  This  work  presup 
poses  depravity  in  man,  and  a  system  of  means  ordained 
for  its  removal.  Christ  thus  states  his  own  views  of  his 
great  aim  and  end  :  "I  came  not  to  call  the  righteous,  but 
sinners,  to  repentance.  The  Son  of  Man  is  come  to  seek 
and  save  that  which  is  lost."  This  is  to  be  effected  by  pro 
ducing  in  sinful  man  conviction  of  sin,  a  true  and  honorable 
sense  of  its  evils,  repentance  and  faith  in  Christ.  But  true 
repentance  and  confession  of  sin  imply  a  conviction  that  the 
conduct  of  God  towards  the  sinner  has  been,  in  all  things, 
honorable  and  right,  and  that  his  own  conduct  towards  God 
has  been  wrong,  dishonorable,  and  without  excuse.  It  is 
plain,  therefore,  that  those  are  the  great  moving  powers  of 
Christianity  which  are  essential  in  order  to  produce  these 
rf'  results.  It  is  no  less  plain  that  they  are  the  two  following : 

1 .  A  true  and  thorough  statement  of  what  is  involved  in 
the  fallen  and  ruined  condition  of  man  as  a  sinner. 

2.  A  full  development  of  the  honor,  justice,  and  benevo 
lence  of  God,  in  all  his  dealings  with  man,  so  made,  as,  in 


THE    MOVING    POWERS    OF    CHRISTIANITY.  17 

the  first  place,  to  free  him  from  the  charge  of  dishonorably 
ruining  them,  and  then  to  exhibit  him  as  earnestly  and 
benevolently  engaged  in  efforts  for  their  salvation,  through 
Christ,  after  they  have  been  ruined  by  their  own  fault. 

Of  these  two  moving  powers,  each  is  equally  indispens 
able  in  the  great  work  of  renovating  and  saving  man.  Till 
he  is  brought  truly  to  see  and  deeply  to  feel  his  lost  and 
ruined  state,  and  the  dangers  to  which  he  is  exposed,  he 
will  make  no  effort  to  secure  a  salvation  of  which  he  feels 
no  need. 

Nor,  on  the  other  hand,  can  any  one  sincerely  and  honor 
ably  confess  and  repent,  if  his  views  of  God  are  such  that 
he  regards  him  as,  by  unjust  and  dishonorable  measures,  the 
author  of  his  ruin.  He  may  feel  slavish  fear,  but  he  will 
not  feel  genuine  repentance,  till  he  admits  the  charge  that 
the  entire  guilt  is  his  own,  and  believes  that  God  can  for 
give  him  through  Christ,  and  is  earnestly  and  benevolently 
engaged  in  efforts  for  his  salvation. 

In  these  views,  thus  generally  stated,  we  think  that  all 
true  Christians  will  agree.  They  may  differ  in  the  manner 
in  which  they  would  develop  the  truths  included  under  each 
of  these  great  heads.  But,  that  the  practical  working 
power  of  the  system  depends  upon  them,  no  one,  we  think, 
will  deny. 

These,  then,  are  the  two  great  moving  powers  of  Chris 
tianity.  These,  to  resume  our  original  comparison,  are  the 
wheels  which  must  be  so  adjusted  as  to  work  harmoniously 
together,  before  Christianity  as  a  system  can  exert  its  full 
power.  These,  too,  are  the  powers  which,  as  we  propose  to 
show,  have  been  made,  by  an  unhappy  misadjustment,  to 
work  against  each  other,  and  hence  the  calamitous  results 
that  have  been  already  set  forth. 

Before  attempting  definitely  to  state  what  is  the  alleged 
2* 


CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 


misadjustment,  it  is  important,  in  the  first  place,  to  prove 
that  the  conflict  said  to  be  caused  by  it  really  exists,  and  ia 
unavoidable  as  the  system  is  now  adjusted.  This  will  be 
made  perfectly  apparent  by  a  mere  statement  of  what  is 
involved  in  a  full  development  of  each  of  these  great  moving 
powers. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE    PRINCIPLES    OF   HONOR   AND    OF   RIGHT. 

WHAT,  then,  are  the  principles  of  honor  and  of  right,  by 
which  the  conduct  of  God  ought  to  be  regulated  in  his  deal 
ings  with  his  creatures,  and  especially  with  new-created 
minds  ?  A  knowledge  of  these  is  manifestly  essential,  in 
order  to  set  forth  that  great  moving  power  of  Christianity, 
which  I  announced  as  the  second,  but  shall  consider  as  in 
in  the  order  of  nature  the  first. 

This  is,  as  has  been  said,  a  full  development  of  the  honor, 
righteousness  and  benevolence  of  God  towards  his  sinful 
creatures,  so  as,  in  the  first  place,  to  free  him  from  the 
charge  of  dishonorably  causing  their  ruin,  and  then  to 
exhibit  him  as  earnestly  and  benevolently  engaged  in  efforts, 
through  Christ,  for  their  salvation  when  lost,  so  that  he 
can  truly  say,  ' '  Thou  hast  destroyed  thyself,  but  in  me  is 
thy  help!" 

The  elements  of  this  great  moving  power  of  Christianity 
are  to  be  derived  from  those  natural  judgments,  concerning 
the  principles  of  honor  and  right,  which  God  has  made  the 
human  mind  to  form  with  intuitive  certainty,  and  which  he 
designed  to  be  a  divine  disclosure  to  us  of  the  principles  by 
which  he  regulates  his  own  conduct. 

Inasmuch,  however,  as  the  mind  of  man  is  depraved,  and 
there  may  be  danger  in  trusting  its  unrevised  and  uncor- 


20  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

rected  decisions  as  to  these  principles,  it  is  of  great 
importance,  for  purposes  of  revision,  carefully  to  study 
those  developments  of  benevolent,  honorable  and  just  feel 
ings,  towards  which  the  human  mind,  after  regeneration, 
and  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  found  most 
directly  to  tend. 

The  results  thus  obtained  we  are  again  to  verify,  by  com 
paring  them,  as  far  as  may  be,  with  the  explicit  statements 
of  the  word  of  God. 

This  great  moving  power  deserves  particular  attention. 
It  is  of  fundamental  importance  in  this  whole  investigation. 
No  man  will  call  in  question  what  he  concedes  to  be  a  real 
decision  of  God,  however  made ;  but  there  have  been,  and 
still  are,  those  who  think  so  much  more  of  the  verbal  rev 
elations  of  God  than  of  any  other,  that  they  almost  overlook 
the  fact  that  the  foundations  of  all  possible  knowledge 
have  been  laid  by  God  in  the  consciousness  and  the  intuitive 
perceptions  of  the  mind  itself.  Forgetful  of  this  fact,  they 
have  often,  by  unfounded  interpretations  of  scripture,  done 
violence  to  the  mind,  and  overruled  the  decisions  made  by 
God  himself  through  it,  and  then  sought  shelter  in  faith 
and  mystery.  To  avert,  therefore,  such  results,  I  shall 
proceed  in  the  manner  already  suggested,  to  show  that  there 
are  divinely-given  convictions  as  to  honor  and  right,  and  to 
state  such  of  them  as  are  required  by  the  present  dis 
cussion. 

That  there  are,  then,  fundamental  judgments  concerning 
honor  and  right,  which  God  has  made  the  human  mind  to 
form  with  intuitive  certainty,  and  which  he  designed  to  be  a 
divine  disclosure  of  the  principles  by  which  he  regulates 
his  own  conduct,  has  been  extensively  held  by  leading 
divines  and  philosophers.  Dr.  Alexander  says,  "That  God, 
as  a  moral  governor,  has  incorporated  the  elements  of  his 


THE    PRINCIPLES   OF  HONOR  AND   OF  RIGHT.  21 

law  into  our  very  constitution."  He  with  great  earnest 
ness  maintains,  so  his  son  assures  us,  "the  intuitive 
perceptions  of  conscience  as  independent  of  every  doctrine 
of  theology,  even  the  greatest."  Other  authorities  might 
be  quoted,  but  it  is  better  to  rest  the  case  upon  the  testi 
mony  of  God  himself,  and  not  upon  the  decisions  of  unin 
spired  teachers.  The  doctrine  before  us  is  an  expressly 
revealed  doctrine  of  the  word  of  God.  Nor  has  it  been 
revealed  incidentally,  and  in  unimportant  relations;  but 
formally,  and  as  the  basis  of  God's  proceedings  in  the  most 
important  transaction  of  the  present  dispensation, —  a  trans 
action  vitally  affecting  the  interests  of  the  greatest  portion 
of  the  human  race.  I  refer  to  the  final  judgment  of  all 
who  have  lived  and  died  without  a  written  revelation  of  the 
laws  of  God.  That  such  will  be  judged  and  punished  for 
their  sins,  is  distinctly  announced  by  the  Apostle  Paul 
(Rom.  2  :  12,  16).  The  reason  which  justifies  this  mode 
of  proceeding  is  there  distinctly  declared  to  be,  that  God 
has  so  constituted  their  minds  that  their  intuitive  decisions 
on  questions  of  honor  and  right  are,  in  fact,  a  law  of  God, 
although  not  revealed  by  a  written  revelation.  Listen,  then, 
to  the  divine  statement : 

"  For  when  the  Gentiles,  which  have  not  the  (revealed) 
law,  do  by  nature  the  things  contained  in  the  law,  these, 
having  not  the  law,  are  a  law  unto  themselves ;  which 
show  the  work  of  the  law  written  in  their  hearts, —  their 
conscience  also  bearing  witness,  and  their  thoughts  the 
mean  while  accusing,  or  else  excusing,  one  another." 

It  is  not  necessary  here  to  go  into  a  careful  analysis  of 
words  or  phrases,  for  the  main  truth  which  I  am  consider 
ing  lies  on  the  very  face  of  the  passage.  God,  it  assures 
us,  will  judge  the  Gentiles  at  the  last  day,  though  they 
have  no  revealed  law,  "  Because  they  are  a  law  unto  them- 


22  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

selves,  inasmuch  as  the  work  of  the  law  is  written  on  their 
hearts ;  that  is,  because  he  has  so  made  their  minds  that 
a  standard  of  judgment  is  disclosed  by  their  natural  and 
intuitive  perceptions  and  convictions  of  honor  arid  right. 
Indeed,  so  clear  is  the  case,  that  leading  commentators  of 
all  schools  coincide  in  this  interpretation. 

Prof.  Hodge  says,  in  commenting  on  the  assertion 
that  the  Gentiles  "do  by  nature  the  things  of  the  law/' 
"  When  they  practise  any  of  the  virtues,  or  perform  any 
moral  acts,  these  acts  are  evidence  of  a  moral  sense ;  they 
show  that  the  Gentiles  have  a  rule  of  right  and  wrong,  and 
a  feeling  of  obligation  ;  or,  in  other  words,  that  they  are 
1  a  law  unto  themselves.'  When  the  Gentiles  are  said  to 
do  by  nature  the  things  of  the  law,  it  is  meant  that  they 
have  not  been  taught  by  others.  It  is  neither  by  instruc 
tion  nor  example,  but  by  their  own  innate  sense  of  right  and 
wrong,  that  they  are  directed.  Having  this  natural  sense  of 
right  and  wrong,  though  destitute  of  a  law  externally 
revealed,  they  are  a  law  unto  themselves." 

Prof.  Stuart  declares  that  the  import  of  the  passage,  as 
a  reply  to  the  Jew,  is,  "  Although  a  heathen  man  has  no 
scripture  (and  in  this  respect  no  law),  yet  he  has  an  inter 
nal  revelation  inscribed  on  his  heart,  which  is  a  rule  of 
life  to  him,  and  which,  if  perfectly  obeyed,  would  confer 
justification  on  him,  as  well  and  as  truly  as  entire  obedience 
to  the  written  law  could  confer  it  upon  you."  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  however,  he  holds  that  neither  Jew  nor  Gentile 
does  so  obey  as  to  be  justified.  Prof.  Stuart  again 
says,  "  Those  commit  a  great  mistake  who  deny  that  men 
can  have  any  sense  of  moral  duty  or  obligation  without  a 
knowledge  of  the  Scriptures.  The  apostle's  argument,  in 
order  to  convince  the  Gentiles  of  sin,  rests  on  a  basis 
entirely  different  from  this."  Again,  the  statement  that 


THE   PRINCIPLES    OF   HONOR   AND    OF   RIGHT.          23 

the  work  of  the  law  is  written  on  their  hearts  means,  in 
his  judgment,  "That  the  great  precepts  of  moral  duty  are 
deeply  impressed  on  our  moral  nature,  and  coexist  with  it, 
even  when  it  is  unenlightened  by  special  revelation." 

Dr.  Chalmers  says  of  the  apostle's  reasoning,  in  verse 
15,  "  There  seem  here  to  be  two  distinct  proofs  of  the 
Gentiles  being  a  law  unto  themselves.  The  first  is  from 
the  fact  of  there  being  a  conscience  individually  at  work  in 
each  bosom,  and  deponing  either  to  the  merit  or  demerit  of 
actions ;  the  second,  from  the  fact  of  their  accusing  or 
excusing  one  another  in  the  reasonings  or  disputes  which 
took  place  between  man  and  man.  *  *  *  This  proves 
them  to  be  in  possession  of  a  common  rule  or  standard  of 
judging ;  or,  in  other  words,  that  a  la.w  is  actually  among 
them.  So  true  is  it,  even  in  its  application  to  the  Gentiles, 
that  there  is  a  light  which  lighteth  every  man  who  cometh 
into  the  world."  Again,  "  There  do  exist,  even  in  the 
remotest  tracks  of  paganism,  such  vestiges  of  light,  as, 
when  collected  together,  form  a  code  or  directory  of  moral 
conduct.  There  are  still  to  be  found  among  them  the 
fragments  of  a  law,  which  they  never  follow  but  with  an 
approving  conscience,  and  never  violate  but  with  the  check 
of  an  opposing  remonstrance,  that  by  their  own  wilfulness 
and  their  own  obstinacy  is  overborne, —  in  other  words,  they 
are  a  law  unto  themselves,  and  their  conscience  vests  it 
with  an  authority,  by  bearing  witness  to  the  Tightness  and 
obligation  of  its  requirements." 

Tholuck  remarks,  "  By  the  law  written  on  the  heart,  Paul 
meant  the  conscience, —  that  which  constitutes  the  bond  of 
relationship  between  man  and  God,  and  which  discovers 
itself  as  a  sense  of  what  is  just  and  good."  Again,  "  When 
the  Gentile  contemplated  the  law  written  within  him  as  a 
commandment  inscribed  by  God  himself  upon  his  heart,  he 


24  CONFLICT    OF    AGES. 

might  feel  himself  excited  to  obedience  by  a  reverential  awe 
of  what  is  holy.  This  feeling,  although  it  did  not  govern 
men's  lives  among  the  Greeks,  comes  yet  nobly  forward  in 
many  sentiments  of  the  tragic  poets.  To  cite  one  example, 
see  the  admirable  chorus  upon  conscience  in  (Edipus 
Tyrannus." 

In  striking  accordance  with  these  views,  Melancthon  has 
with  great  eloquence  said,  "  Wherefore  our  decision  is  this  : 
that  those  precepts  which  learned  men  have  committed  to 
writing,  transcribing  them  from  the  common  reason  and 
common  feelings  of  human  nature,  are  to  be  accounted  as 
not  less  divine  than  those  contained  in  the  tables  given  to 
Moses ;  and,  that  it  could  not  be  the  intention  of  our  Maker 
to  supersede,  by  a  law  graven  on  stone,  that  which  is  written 
by  his  own  finger  on  the  table  of  the  heart." 

Calvin,  commenting  on  this  passage,  strongly  enforces 
the  same  views  :  —  "  Since  all  nations  are  spontaneously 
inclined  to  enact  laws  for  themselves,  it  is  too  clear  to  be 
doubted  that  there  are  certain  conceptions  of  justice  and 
right  which  exist  by  nature  in  the  minds  of  men."  "He 
opposes  nature  to  the  written  law,  meaning  that  a  natural 
light  of  justice  illuminates  the  Gentiles,  which  supplies  the 
place  of  the  law  by  which  the  Jews  are  instructed,  so  that 
they  are  a  law  unto  themselves."  (See  Note,  p.  30.) 

Nor  have  these  views  been  promulgated  solely  by  the 
apostle  Paul.  Our  Saviour,  in  his  controversies  with  the 
Jews,  assumed  the  existence  of  native  and  intuitive  princi 
ples  of  right, —  of  divine  authority, —  and  appealed  to  them, 
and  called  on  his  antagonists  to  do  the  same  (Luke  12  : 
57).  ."  Yea,  why,  even  of  yourselves,  judge  ye  not  what 
is  right?"  The  system  of  Christ,  to  use  the  words  of 
Henry,  ''has  reason  and  natural  conscience  on  its  side; 
and,  if  men  would  allow  themselves  the  liberty  of  judging 


THE    PRINCIPLES    OF   HONOR   AND    OF   RIGHT.  25 

what  is  right,  they  would  soon  find  that  all  Christ's  pre 
cepts  concerning  all  things  are  right."  Calvin  says,  on 
this  passage,  "  Here  Christ  lays  open  the  source  of  the  evil, 
and  touches,  as  it  were  with  a  lancet,  the  internal  ulcer ; 
they  would  not  descend  into  their  own  consciences,  and, 
before  God,  inquire  within  themselves  what  is  right." 

Abraham,  moreover,  in  his  plea  for  guilty  Sodom,  first 
adduced  certain  intuitive  principles  of  right,  and  then,  by  the 
appeal,  "  Shall  not  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth  do  right?  " 
assumed  not  only  that  the  mind  of  MAN  was  made  intuitively 
to  perceive  the  principles  of  right,  but  also  that  GOD  was 
as  truly  bound  by  them  as  man ;  and  God  himself,  by  his 
reply,  sanctioned  the  assumption.  He  has  also  at  other 
times  sanctioned  it,  particularly  in  that  impressive  argument 
with  the  Jews,  contained  in  the  eighteenth  and  thirty-third 
chapters  of  Ezekiel,  in  which  he  appeals  to  the  natural  con 
victions  of  the  human  mind  concerning  what  is  honorable 
and  right,  in  vindication  of  his  own  conduct  against  the 
charge  that  his  ways  were  not  equal.  The  conclusion  of  his 
argument  is  this,  "  Are  not  my  ways  equal,  and  are  not 
your  ways  unequal?  saith  the  Lord."  Thus  he  did  not 
repudiate  the  standard  of  judgment  before  which  they 
sought  to  try  his  ways  ;  but,  admitting  its  authority  as  a 
natural  revelation  proceeding  from  himself,  he  joined  issue 
with  them,  and  declared  that  he  could  endure  the  scrutiny, 
and  that  they  could  not.  Indeed,  it  is  the  highest,  the 
crowning  glory  of  God,  that  he  can  thus  "  overcome  when 
he  is  judged" 

It  is  proper  that  I  should  here  call  particular  attention 
to  the  reason  why  I  have  so  largely  unfolded  the  scriptural 
evidence  in  favor  of  the  position  which  I  have  laid  down. 
I  have  done  it  for  the  sake  of  prominence  and  impression, 
and  fixed  attention.  It  is,  because  an  appeal  to  the  natural 
3 


26  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

and  intuitive  principles  of  honor  and  right,  such  as  I  shall 
soon  have  occasion  to  make,  is  often  regarded  and  treated 
as  an  improper  and  dangerous  species  of  rationalizing.  Of 
this  we  may  see  striking  illustrations  before  we  close  this 
discussion.  I  deem  it  therefore  important —  nay,  essential  — 
to  show  that  the  position  which  I  shall  hereafter  assume  is 
not  improper  rationalism,  but  a  doctrine  of  the  word  of 
God,  as  clearly  revealed  as  the  doctrine  of  depravity  itself. 
God  himself  declares  that  the  intuitive  perceptions  of  the 
human  mind,  as  to  honor  and  right,  are  a  revelation  from 
the  Creator, —  a  divine  law,  of  supreme  and  binding 
authority.  God  himself  enjoins  it  on  men,  as  a  sacred  duty, 
to  judge  by  them.  He  does  not  feel  honored  by  any 
defence  which  disregards  them.  Nay,  he  admits  that  his 
own  conduct  is  amenable  to  judgment  by  these  principles, 
and  defends  himself  by  an  appeal  to  the  same. 

I  admit,  indeed,  that  few  have  dared  openly  to  deny  that 
there  are  among  men  such  intuitive  principles  of  honor  and 
right ;  but,  nevertheless,  some,  as  we  shall  soon  see,  when 
pressed  by  their  application  to  certain  alleged  acts  of 
God,  have  denied  that  they  are  common  alike  to  God  and 
to  man,  and  alike  binding  on  both.  Concerning  this  view, 
I  would  say,  with  emphasis,  that  it  is  a  most  unfounded  and 
pernicious  position.  It  is  unfounded ;  for  who  has  ever 
adduced,  or  can  adduce,  any  evidence  of  its  truth  ?  It  is 
most  pernicious ;  for  it  destroys  that  which  Tholuck  so 
impressively  calls  "  the  bond  of  relationship  between  God 
and  man."  Indeed,  it  would  subvert  the  very  foundations 
of  the  government  of  God.  How  could  we  see  or  adore 
the  glories  of  the  divine  character,  how  could  we  ever 
enter  into  rational  and  joyful  communion  with  God,  if  he 
had  so  made  our  minds  that  our  intuitive  judgments  of 
honor  and  right  were,  or  could  be,  opposed  to  his  own  'I 


THE    PRINCIPLES    OF    HONOR   AND    OF    RIGHT.  27 

How  could  we  ever  correctly  judge  of  the  honor  or  recti 
tude  of  his  conduct,  if  the  standard  of  honor  and  rectitude 
revealed  by  him.  in  the  structure  of  our  minds,  did  not 
agree  with  his  own  standard  on  the  same  points  ?  Such  a 
state  of  things  would  lay  the  foundation  of  necessary  and 
eternal  discord  between  him  and  us,  and  that  on  the  most 
important  of  all  practical  questions.  We  must  therefore 
of  necessity  assume,  not  only  that  there  are  judgments  con 
cerning  honor  and  right  which  God  has  made  the  human 
mind  to  form  with  intuitive  certainty,  but  that  they  are 
common  to  God  and  to  man.  This  is  a  fundamental 
doctrine  of  the  Bible.  To  test  any  alleged  acts  of  God 
by  such  principles,  is  not  improper  rationalizing.  God  not 
only  authorizes,  but  even  enjoins  it  as  a  sacred  duty.  To 
this  point  I  call  special  attention. 

It  is  no  less  plain,  that  whatever  these  principles  are, 
their  authority  is  supreme.  No  considerations  of  mere 
expediency  or  policy,  whether  individual  or  general,  if 
opposed  to  them,  ought  to  have  any  force  ;  nor  with  God  can 
they  have  any  force.  Though  there  is  above  him  neither 
judge  nor  judgment  to  which  he  is  responsible,  yet  he  has,  in 
his  own  mind,  an  eternal  and  immutable  law  of  honor  and 
right  which  he  cannot  disregard,  and  he  is  his  own  omnis 
cient  judge.  Should  he  not  follow  his  own  convictions  of 
honor  and  of  right,  he  could  not  retain  his  own  self-respect, 
but  would  experience  infinite  self-condemnation  and  remorse ; 
he  would  be  the  most  miserable  being  in  the  universe.  It 
is,  therefore,  an  infinite  necessity  in  God's  own  nature  that 
he  should  obey  the  laws  of  honor  and  of  right ;  and,  beyond 
all  doubt,  he  ever  has,  and  ever  will.  A  summary  of  these 
laws  is  nowhere  explicitly  and  systematically  set  forth  in 
the  word  of  God:  they  are  rather  from  time  to  time 
assumed,  as  exigences  occur. 


28  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

Nor,  so  far  as  I  know,  has  it  been  customary,  in  setting 
forth  the  Christian  system,  to  attempt  any  formal  statement 
of  them.  For  this,  obvious  reasons  may,  in  certain  cases, 
account.  Acts  have  been  by  some  ascribed  to  God,  which, 
to  say  the  least,  are  at  war  with  our  common  ideas  of  equity 
and  honor.  In  such  cases,  it  is  natural,  as  far  as  may  be, 
to  avoid  a  formal  statement  of  these  ideas. 

If,  however,  the  subject  cannot  be  avoided,  the  same 
causes  tend  to  produce  a  constrained  and  unnatural  action 
of  the  mind.  The  supposed  acts  of  God  are  assumed  as  a 
standard,  and  all  principles  are  rejected  that  disagree  with 
them ;  or,  at  least,  it  is  said  that,  though  true  with  respect 
to  man,  they  are  not  with  respect  to  God ;  and  that  he  is  not 
bound  by  them,  though  man  is.  Indeed,  this  has  been  done 
to  a  great  extent,  as  will  be  shown  in  the  cases  of  Pascal, 
Abelard,  and  others ;  and  has,  as  might  have  been  expected, 
revealed  its  tendencies  by  its  disastrous  influences  on  the 
mind.  An  effort  to  eradicate  from  the  mind  any  real  prin 
ciple  of  honor  and  right  does  violence  to  our  intellectual 
and  moral  nature.  Such  principles  cannot  be  exterminated. 
They  will  protest  against  the  violence.  The  mind  still 
yearns  after  them,  and  cannot  rest  and  be  satisfied  till  they 
are  assumed  as  true. 

These  principles,  so  far  as  involved  in  this  incjuiry,  have 
reference  to  the  following  points,  among  others  : 

1.  The  distinction   that  ought  to  be  made  between  the 
innocent  and  the  guilty. 

2.  The  distinction  that  ought  to  be  made  between  original 
constitution  and  responsible  moral  character. 

3.  The  relations  and  obligations  that  exist  between  great 
and  powerful  minds  and  such  as  are  more  feeble  and  lim 
ited,  and  especially  between  the  great  self-sustained  Mind 
and  such  as  are  inferior  and  dependent. 


TUB   PRINCIPLES    OF   HONOR   AND    OF    RIGHT.  29 

4.  The  obligations  of  the  Creator  to  new-created  beings, 
as  to  their  original  constitution,  powers,  circumstances,  and 
probation.  v 

On  all  these  points  God  has  made  the  human  mind  to 
have  decided  intuitive  convictions  as  to  what  is  consist 
ent  with  equity  and  honor.  These  we  are  not  violently 
to  suppress  by  preconceived  theories,  or  assumed  facts. 
If  any  alleged  actions  of  God  come  into  collision  with 
the  natural  and  intuitive  judgments  of  the  human  mind 
concerning  what  is  honorable  and  right  on  the  points  speci 
fied,  there  is  better  reason  to  call  in  question  the  alleged 
facts  than  to  suppose  those  principles  to  be  false  which  God  ./ 
has  made  the  human  mind  intuitively  to  recognize  as  true. 
Moreover,  we  have  divine  authority  for  so  doing ;  since,  in 
a  debate  with  the  Jews,  involving  these  points,  God  does 
not  hesitate  to  appeal  to  these  very  principles,  and  to  reason 
in  perfect  accordance  with  their  common  and  obvious  deci 
sions.  Ezek.  18:  1—4,  19,  22,  25,  29,  and  33:  11, 
17—20. 

It  has  been  already  stated  that  aid  is  to  be  derived,  in 
developing  and  arranging  the  principles  of  honor  and  right, 
by  considering  those  manifestations  of  thought  and  convic 
tion  towards  which  the  human  mind,  when  regenerated  and 
sanctified,  and  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  most 
directly  tends.  It  cannot  be  supposed  that  the  progress 
of  true  sanctification  tends  to  make  men  unlike  God  in 
thought,  emotions  and  convictions ;  but,  rather,  to  restore 
them  more  fully  to  his  lost  image,  and  to  prepare  them  for 
that  intimate  and  perfect  communion  with  him  for  which 
the  redeemed  are  especially  designed. 

How  far  the  unregenerated  mind  can,  in  fact,  be  per 
verted  in  its  moral  judgments  by  depravity,  I  shall  not  here 
undertake  <->  decide.  But,  so  far  as  there  is  a  liability  of 

3* 


30  CONFLICT    OF    AGES. 

this  kind,  it  is  plainly  removed  so  far  as  the  mind  is  sancti 
fied,  and  thus  restored  to  its  normal  state  of  sympathetic 
communion  with  God.  In  this  state,  its  moral  decisions 
ought  justly  to  be  regarded  as  more  and  more  evidently  in 
harmony  with  those  of  God. 

The  remaining  source  which  I  have  specified,  from  which 
we  can  derive  aid  in  revising  and  perfecting  our  systematic 
enunciation  of  the  principles  of  honor  and  right,  is  to  be 
found  in  the  incidental  assumptions  and  statements  of  the 
word  of  God.  Though  there  is  not,  as  has  been  remarked, 
any  complete  formal  and  systematic  view  of  this  subject 
given  in  the  Bible,  yet,  in  various  occasional  assertions  and 
incidental  statements,  God  has  clearly  set  forth  his  own 
feelings  and  views. 

The  fact  that  so  much  less  intellectual  effort  has  ever 
been  expended  in  setting  forth  the  demands  of  honor  and 
justice  on  God,  in  his  dealings  with  new-created  minds,  than 
has  been  in  stating  and  proving  the  ruined  condition  of  man, 
is,  probably,  the  reason  that  no  public  formularies  have  ever 
made  any  explicit  statements  on  the  subject.  In  conse 
quence  of  this,  and  of  the  fact  that  it  has  not  been  common 
formally  to  discuss  it  in  systems  of  theology,  I  shall  not  be 
able  to  make  full  statements  of  conceded  principles  in  the 
systematized  formulas  of  others,  as  I  propose  to  do  on  the 
subject  of  human  depravity.  I  shall,  on  the  other  hand, 
derive  my  statements  from  a  careful  examination  and  con 
sideration  of  the  sources  of  evidence  already  stated,  and  then 
compare  them  with  incidental  statements  by  others. 

NOTE. — I  do  not  quote  the  preceding  authors  to  sanction  the  peculiar 
theory  of  any  one  as  to  the  nature  and  action  of  conscience,  but  only  their 
great  common  doctrine,  that  God  has  so  made  the  mind  that  it  has  in  soma 
way  intuitive  perceptions  of  honor  and  right. 


CHAPTER    V. 

STATEMENT     OF     MORAL     PRINCIPLES. 

WHAT,  then,  are  the  principles  of  honor  and  right  on  the 
various  points  which  have  been  specified  ? 

1.  God  has  made  us  intuitively  to  perceive  and  feel,  and, 
therefore,  he  also  perceives  and  feels,  that  increase  of  powers 
to  any  degree  of  magnitude  produces,  not  a  decrease,  but 
an  increase,  of  obligation  to  feel  and  act  benevolently 
towards  inferiors, — that  is,  with  an  honorable  regard  to 
their  true  and  highest  good. 

In  proportion  as  a  mind  is  strong,  independent,  and 
abundantly  able  to  secure  its  own  welfare,  it  is  free  from 
temptations  to  be  absorbed  in  its  own  interests  and  cares, 
and  is  at  leisure  to  think  and  feel  and  plan  for  others, 
whose  welfare  is  not  thus  secure. 

Moreover,  as  the  powers  of  the  superior  mind  increase, 
he  has  the  greater  ability  to  do  good  or  evil  to  inferior 
minds.  Of  course,  his  obligation  to  use  it  for  their  good 
increases.  Moreover,  the  influence  of  his  example  increases 
as  his  powers  increase.  Of  course,  he  is  bound  by  a  propor 
tionate  obligation  to  make  it  such  as  all  can  safely  imitate. 

No  moral  principles  are  recognized  as  true  with  a  clearer 
and  more  absolute  intuition  than  those  which  I  have  now 
stated. 

How  is  it  in  the  parental  relation  ?  Do  not  all  feel  that 
the  superior  powers  of  parents  create  an  obligation  of  the 


32  CONFLICT    OF    AGE.5. 

most  touching  and  imperative  kind  towards  a  weak,  de 
fenceless,  new-born  infant  ?  Do  not  such  superior  powers, 
and  the  fact  that  their  example  will  exert  a  controlling  influ 
ence,  sacredly  bind  them  in  all  things  so  to  use  their  powers, 
and  regulate  their  example,  as  to  promote  the  highest  good 
of  the  young  heir  of  immortality  who  lies  helpless  in  their 
arms  ?  Would  it  not  seem  unspeakably  horrible  to  allege 
their  superior  powers  as  a  reason  for  doing  otherwise  ? 

If,  therefore,  God  gives  existence  to  inferior  and  depend 
ent  minds,  is  he,  the  Infinite  Father,  can  he  be,  under  any 
other  or  different  obligations  1  Does  he  desire  us  to  think 
of  him  as  not  tenderly  affected,  and  not  bound  by  the  appeal 
made  to  him  by  a  new-created  mind,  in  view  of  the  fearful 
eternity  that  spreads  out  before  him,  so  to  exert  his  infinite 
powers,  and  so  to  order  his  infinite  example,  as  shall  most 
entirely  tend  to  promote  his  eternal  good  ?  Does  not  every 
intuitive  conviction,  every  honorable  impulse  of  a  benevolent 
mind,  call  for  such  an  assurance  concerning  God,  in  order 
to  be  satisfied  with  his  character  ?  Is  not  this  the  dividing 
line  between  the  divine  and  the  satanic  spirit?  When,  in 
this  world,  those  who  have  gained  wealth,  knowledge  and 
power,  separate  themselves  in  feeling  and  sympathy  from 
the  poor,  ignorant  arid  weak,  and  form  select  and  exclusive 
circles,  as  if  their  superior  powers  and  advantages  imposed 
on  them  no  obligation  to  sympathize  with  the  sufferings 
and  promote  the  welfare  of  those  below  them,  can  anything 
more  perfectly  illustrate  the  satanic  spirit  of  him  whose  law 
is  selfishness  ?  Ought  not  the  spirit  of  God  to  be  entirely 
the  reverse  of  this  ?  Is  it  not  ?  Could  he  be  honorable  or 
righteous  if  it  were  not  so?  Does  any  one  allege  his  right, 
as  creator,  to  do  as  he  will  with  his  creatures  ?  Within 
certain  limits,  he  has  this  right.  But  creation  gives  no 
right  to  the  creator  to  disregard  or  to  undervalue  the  well- 


STATEMENT    OF   MORAL    PRINCIPLES.  CO 

being  of  creatures,  or  to  treat  them  contrary  to  the  laws 
of  their  intellectual,  moral  and  voluntary  nature,  on  the 
ground  that  he  created  them.  It  is  not  enough  to  say, 
that,  as  he  would  treat  them  if  he  had  not  made  them,  so 
ought  he  now  to  treat  them.  On  the  other  hand,  the  fact 
that  he  created  them  makes  the  most  touching  of  all  appeals 
to  every  principle  of  honor  and  right  in  the  Almighty  Cre 
ator  to  be  their  defender,  protector,  and  friend. 

If  it  is  said,  God,  as  the  greatest  of  all  beings,  makes 
himself,  and  not  his  creatures,  his  great  end,  it  is  enough 
to  say,  in  reply,  even  if  this  were  so, —  on  which  I  do  not 
feel  called  upon  now  to  express  an  opinion, —  still,  God 
cannot  promote  either  his  own  happiness  or  glory,  except  by 
the  observance  of  the  principles  of  honor  and  right  of  which 
we  are  now  speaking.  Even  if,  therefore,  he  makes  him 
self  his  chief  end,  he  must  observe  them.  Nor  could  he 
make  any  other  truly  honorable  minds  happy,  if  he  were  to 
disregard  these  principles,  for  the  sake  of  ary  supposed 
greater  good  of  which  they  are  to  partake.  A  truly  hon 
orable  mind  cannot  conceive  of  a  higher  good,  than  that  the 
God  whom  he  loves  and  adores  should  fulfil,  to  the  highest 
conceivable  degree  of  exactness,  every  demand  of  honor  and 
right  to  every  created  mind,  however  small. 

No  personal  honor,  no  exaltation,  no  amount  of  enjoy 
ment,  would  bribe  such  a  mind  to  be  satisfied  with  a  God 
who  (even  for  his  sake)  had  disregarded  the  principles 
of  honor  to  any  one,  even  the  least  of  all  created  minds. 
And  it  calls  for  a  serious  review  of  his  opinions,  if  any  one 
is  conscious  of  ascribing  to  God  acts  which  make  him  fear 
to  admit  this  principle  in  its  full  extent.  God  glories  in 
defending  the  smallest  arid  the  feeblest  of  all  his  creatures. 

2.  No  man,  unless  compelled  by  some  supposed  neces 
sity,  would  ever  think  of  denying  that  the  principles  of 


34  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

honor  and  right  call  upon  God  not  to  hold  his  creatures 
responsible  or  punishable  for  anything  in  them  of  which 
they  are  not  the  authors,  but  of  which  he  is.  either  directly 
or  indirectly,  the  creator,  and  which  exists  in  them  anterior 
to  and  independent  of  any  knowledge,  desire,  choice  or 
action,  of  their  own.  Whatever  thus  exists  is  a  part  of  the 
original  constitution  conferred  by  the  Creator  on  his  creat 
ures  :  and  for  this  he  is  obviously  responsible,  and  not 
they.  His  creatures  are  responsible  only  for  that  moral 
character  which  consists  in  or  flows  from  their  own  volun 
tary  use  of  the  powers  conferred  on  them  by  him.  To  prove 
the  truth  of  this  statement,  no  argument  is  needed.  It  is 
one  of  the  clearest  and  most  absolute  intuitive  perceptions 
of  the  mind.  God  has  so  made  our  nature  that  we  recog 
nize  its  truth  with  a  clearness  and  certainty  that  cannot  be 
increased.  This  is  distinctly  recognized  as  the  true  ground 
of  responsibility  in  the  inspired  volume.  It  is  so  expressly 
stated  by  God,  through  the  prophet  Ezekiel.  The  sen 
tence  of  death  is  denounced  upon  the  soul  that  sinneth,  and 
none  else.  (Ezekiel,  chapters  eighteen  and  thirty- three.) 
The  coming  judge  of  all  declares,  "  My  reward  is  with  me, 
to  give  to  every  man  according  as  his  work  shall  be."  The 
apostle  Paul  also  announces  that,  before  the  judgment-seat 
of  Jesus  Christ,  every  man  shall  receive  according  to  what 
he  has  done,  whether  it  be  good  or  bad.  But  nowhere  in 
the  word  of  God  is  it  ever  stated  that  a  man  is  rewarded  or 
punished  for  an  involuntary  constitution,  which  he  received 
from  God. 

3.  The  principles  of  honor  and  right  require  of  God, 
inasmuch  as  he  demands  of  his  creatures  that  they  do  what 
is  right,  and  inasmuch  as  this  demand  is  founded  in  the 
nature  of  things,  that  he  should  not  himself  confound  the 
distinction  between  right  and  wrong,  by  dealing  with  the 


STATEMENT   OF   MORAL   PRINCIPLES.  35 

righteous  as  with  the  wicked.  The  patriarch  Abraham,  in 
his  most  eloquent  and  touching  plea  for  guilty  Sodom, 
assumed  that  the  judge  of  all  the  earth  would  do  wrong  if 
he  did  this.  "  That  be  far  from  thee  to  do  after  this  man 
ner,  to  slay  the  righteous  with  the  wicked ;  and  that  the 
righteous  should  be  as  the  wicked,  that  be  far  from  thee ; 
shall  not  the  judge  of  all  the  earth  do  right?  "  Did  God 
repudiate  this  assumption  of  Abraham,  that  righteous  man, 
whom  he  was  not  ashamed  to  call  his  friend?  Nay,  verily, 
he  rather  accepted  and  confirmed  it  by  his  approval.  "With 
reference  to  this  point,  Dr.  Alexander,  therefore,  well  says, 
u  All  intuitively  discern,  that,  for  a  ruler  to  punish  the 
innocent,  and  spare  the  guilty,  is  morally  wrong,"  p.  36. 
Still  further ;  inspiration  has  decided  that  it  is  essential  to 
true  faith  in  God  to  believe,  not  only  that  he  is,  but  that 
he  is  a  rewarder  of  those  who  diligently  seek  him. 

4.  The  principles  of  honor  and  right  demand  of  God  not 
so  to  charge  the  wrong  conduct  of  one  being  to  others  as  to 
punish  one  person  for  the  conduct  of  another,  to  which  he 
did  not  consent,  and  in  which  he  had  no  part.  No  decision 
of  the  human  mind  concerning  honor  and  right  can  be 
clearer  than  this,  and  it  is  distinctly  recognized  by  God  as 
true.  When  the  Jews,  in  the  days  of  Ezekiel,  charged  him 
with  injustice,  for  punishing  them  for  sins  which  they  had 
never  committed, — that  is,  for  the  sins  of  their  fathers, — he 
did  not  admit  the  truth  of  the  charge,  and  claim  the  right 
so  to  punish ;  but  he  indignantly,  and  in  every  variety  of 
form,  denied  the  fact  alleged,  and  declared  that  the  son 
should  not  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  father,  nor  the  father 
that  of  the  son,  but  that  every  man  should  bear  his  own 
iniquity.  "The  soul  that  sinneth,  it  shall  die."  "The 
righteousness  of  the  righteous  shall  be  upon  him,  and  the 
wickedness  of  the  wicked  shall  be  upon  him."  Upon  this 


86  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

ground  alone  did  God  rest  his  appeal  to  his  accusers, —  "Are 
not  my  ways  equal,  and  are  not  your  ways  unequal?  " 

5.  Since  the  creatures  of  God  do  not  exist  by  their  own 
will,  and  since  they  exist  for  eternity,  and  since  nothing 
more  vitally  aifects  their  prospects  for  eternity  than  the 
constitutional  powers  and  propensities  with  which  they  begin 
their  existence,  the  dictates  of  honor  and  right  demand  that 
God  shall  confer  on  them  such  original  constitutions  as 
shall,  in  their  natural  and  proper  tendencies,  favorably 
affect  their  prospects  for  eternity,  and  place  a  reasonable 
power  of  right  conduct  and  of  securing  eternal  life  in  the 
possession  of  all. 

If,  then,  in  the  original  constitution  of  any  new-created 
mind,  and  entirely  independent  of  his  knowledge,  desire, 
choice  or  agency,  there  is  that  which  is  really  sinful  (if  the 
idea  were  not  absurd,  and  the  supposition  were  possible),  and 
if  he  had  no  power  to  do  good,  and  thus  secure  eternal  life, 
such  a  creature  would  not  be  treated  by  the  Creator  accord 
ing  to  the  dictates  of  honor  and  right,  nor  would  he  be 
responsible  for  the  sin  so  existing ;  for  he  would  not  be  its 
author,  but  God,  and  for  it  God  would  be  responsible. 

Still  further ;  if  in  the  original  constitution  of  a  new- 
created  mind,  anterior  to  his  choice  or  action,  there  is  a 
radical  derangement  or  corruption,  resulting  in  a  powerful 
tendency  or  propensity  to  sin,  certain  to  result  in  ruin, 
whilst,  at  the  same  time,  God  had  the  power  to  create  it 
without  this  derangement  or  corruption,  so  that  its  natural 
and  proper  development  would  tend  towards  eternal  life, 
then  such  a  mind  is  not  dealt  with  rightfully  and  honorably. 

He  does  not  and  cannot  decide  with  what  constitutional 
powers  he  shall  exist.  And  yet  nothing  more  vitally 
affects  his  prospects  for  eternity.  If  his  original  constitu 
tion  is  such  that  it  naturally  tends  towards  evil  with  great 


STATEMENT    OF   MORAL    PRINCIPLES.  37 

power,  and  thus  creates  a  moral  certainty  of  ruin,  then 
existence  is  to  him  no  blessing,  but  a  curse  ;  nor  has  the 
Creator  dealt  honorably  or  benevolently  by  him. 

6.  Not  only  do  the  demands  of  honor  and  right  forbid 
the  Creator  thus  to  injure  his  creature  in  his  original  con 
stitution,  but  they  equally  forbid  him  to  place  him  in 
circumstances  needlessly  unfavorable  to  right  conduct,  and 
a  proper  development  of  his  powers. 

What  benevolent  being,  dealing  with  new-created  minds 
committed  to  his  care,  would  not  feel  bound  to  place  them 
under  a  system  of  influences  most  favorably  arranged  for 
their  highest  good,  and  where  all  needless  trials  and  tempt 
ations  to  sin  and  ruin  would  be  avoided  ?  Could  any  man 
defend  himself  on  any  principles  of  benevolence,  honor  or 
right,  if  he  did  not  act  on  this  principle  ?  And  when  the 
great  Creator  is  deciding  on  the  circumstances  of  the 
new- created  immortal  minds  called  into  being  by  his  power, 
is  it  benevolent,  honorable  or  right,  for  him  to  act  on  any 
other  principles  ? 

If,  now,  in  opposition  to  these  views,  any  allege  that  God, 
for  his  own  happiness  or  glory,  or  that  of  his  creatures, 
may  act  on  other  principles,  it  is  enough  to  say,  as  before, 
that  it  is  not  supposable  that  a  perfect  being  could  be  made 
happy  or  glorious  by  acting  on  any  other  principles.  The 
only  grounds  on  which  God,  or  any  of  his  holy  creatures, 
can  be  happy  or  glorious,  as  honorable  and  benevolent 
minds,  in  view  of  the  ruin  of  any  others,  are  those  already 
stated.  It  must  appear  that  God  did  not  wrong  them  in 
their  original  constitution,  but  gave  them  a  constitution 
honorably  manifesting  his  sincere  good  will  towards  them  as 
individuals,  and  tending  towards  eternal  life.  It  must  also 
appear  that  he  did  not  wrong  them  in  their  situation  and 
circumstances,  but  so  placed  them,  that  all  things  were,  on 
4 


38  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

the  whole,  as  favorably  arranged  for  all  as  possible.  That, 
having  thus  placed  them,  he  sincerely  desired  the  highest 
good  of  all ;  and  that  he  set  before  them  good  and  evil, — 
life  arid  death, —  and  demanded  only  faith  and  obedience, 
that  they  should  live.  If,  in  such  circumstances,  any  dis 
believe  his  word,  and  disregard  his  will  and  wishes,  and 
perish,  God  is  absolved,  and  the  guilt  is  theirs. 

These  principles  are  so  simple  and  obvious,  that  no  one 
accustomed  to  regard  benevolence,  honor  and  right,  would 
ever  have  thought  of  calling  any  of  them  in  question,  had 
not  certain  supposed  facts  seemed,  at  times,  to  make  it 
necessary.  But,  notwithstanding  this,  these  principles  have 
been  seen  and  felt  to  be  true.  They  have  been  also  incident 
ally,  if  not  formally  and  systematically,  acknowledged  and 
announced,  in  all  ages ;  and  towards  them,  in  their  fulness, 
the  mind  of  man  has  continually  struggled,  in  proportion  as 
it  has  become  sensitive  to  the  nature  and  demands  of 
benevolence,  honor  and  right.  Nor  will  it  ever  rest,  short 
of  this  ground.  Indeed,  why  should  it?  Are  not  these 
views  in  accordance  with  the  revealed  character  of  God  ? 
Does  not  the  Bible  ascribe  to  him  all  those  traits  from 
which  all  the  principles  that  have  been  stated  may  be 
inferred  ?  By  his  own  testimony,  he  is  love.  He  is  the 
essence  of  honor,  generosity,  magnanimity.  He  has  no 
pleasure  at  all  in  the  death  of  any  of  his  creatures.  He 
exceeds  all  his  creatures  in  the  spirit  of  self-sacrifice  for  the 
good  of  others.  He  desires  all  to  be  saved.  He  is  merci 
ful,  gracious,  long-suffering,  and  abundant  in  goodness  and 
truth,  keeping  mercy  for  thousands,  forgiving  iniquity 
and  transgression  and  sin.  He  expostulates  with  his  sinful 
creatures,  saying,  "  Why  will  ye  die?"  He  says,  "  How 
shall  I  give  thee  up?"  He  laments,  saying,  concerning 
the  lost.  "  0,  that  thou  hadst  known  the  things  that  belong 


STATEMENT   OF   MORAL   PRINCIPLES.  39 

to  thy  peace  ! ' '  He  declares  that  men  perish  entirely  by 
their  own  fault,  and  against  his  desires,  efforts  and  warn 
ings.  "  0,  Israel!  thou  hast  destroyed  thyself,  but  in  me 
is  thy  help  found/'3  It  is  not  possible  that  a  being  whose 
feelings  are  such,  and  who  makes  such  appeals,  should  act 
on  any  other  principles  than  those  already  stated.  If  he 
were  to  give  to  any  new-created  mind  a  depraved  natural 
constitution,  disqualifying  him  for  right  action,  and  impel 
ling  him  to  sin,  and  then  place  him  in  circumstances  of 
extreme  temptation,  how  could  he  lament  over  him,  declare 
that  he  had  no  pleasure  at  all  in  his  death,  entreat  him  not 
to  die,  but  to  turn  and  live,  without  manifest  and  gross 
insincerity?  The  fact,  then,  that  God  does,  in  all  parts 
of  the  Bible,  throw  the  entire  blame  of  their  ruin  on 
men,  and  declares  that  it  is  contrary  to  his  wishes,  pleasure, 
and  strenuous  expostulations  and  efforts,  is  decisive  proof 
that  in  all  his  dealings  with  them  God  has  observed  the 
principles  of  honor,  right  and  benevolence,  as  they  have 
been  laid  down.  .  The  Bible  does  not  for  a  moment  admit 
that  men  have  in  any  respect  been  wronged.  It  always 
presents  God  as  the  injured  party,  and  throws  the  whole 
responsibility  of  wronging  him,  and  ruining  themselves,  on 
men. 

Additional  authority  will  be  conferred  upon  the  princi 
ples  of  honor  and  right  thus  set  forth,  if  we  will  consult 
the  inspired  representation  of  the  feelings,  towards  which  a 
regenerate  mind,  under  the  influences  of  the  divine  Spirit, 
naturally  tends.  They  are  feelings  of  such  deep  interest 
in  the  welfare  of  others  that  they  produce  a  disposition  to 
forego  the  exercise  even  of  our  own  rights,  rather  than  to 
be  the  occasion  of  tempting  them  to  sin.  If  a  Christian 
could  eat  meat  in  an  idol's  temple,  or  meat  that  had  been 
offered  to  an  idol,  without  injuring  his  own  conscience,  yet, 


40  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

as  a  truly  benevolent  person,  he  would  readily  abstain  from 
it,  rather  than  to  expose  a  weak  brother,  by  the  power  of 
the  temptation  of  an  example  which  he  would  misunder 
stand,  to  do  violence  to  his  own  conscience ;  and,  in  general, 
true  benevolence  will  lead  us  not  only  to  avoid  becoming 
to  others  an  occasion  of  temptation  to  sin,  but  to  do  all  in 
our  power  to  avert  from  them  such  temptation,  from  any 
quarter  whatever.  Even  if  in  any  case  the  sinner  who 
yields  to  temptation  is  criminal,  and  without  excuse,  still, 
no  man  acting  under  the  full  influence  of  the  Christian 
spirit  will  excuse  himself,  if  he  has  needlessly  tempted  or 
provoked  him  to  the  commission  of  the  sin.  It  is  the  spon 
taneous  impulse  of  a  regenerate  heart,  in  its  highest 
exercises  of  holy  love,  to  avert  from  others  to  the  greatest 
extent  temptations  to  sin,  and  to  concentrate  upon  them 
to  the  highest  degree  influences  that  tend  to  lead  them  to 
holiness  and  eternal  life.  These  feelings  will  not,  indeed, 
forbid  him  to  act  on  the  principles  of  sovereignty  and 
justice  towards  such  as  have  forfeited  their  rights,  wherever 
the  public  good  demands.  Nor  are  such  feelings  in  God 
inconsistent  with  a  dispensation  of  sovereignty  and  justice 
on  similar  grounds.  But,  even  under  such  a  dispensation, 
he  inspires  his  people  with  a  desire  to  do  all  that  they  can 
to  avert  temptations,  and  to  save  all  even  of  those  who 
have  forfeited  their  rights,  and  might  justly  perish. 

Can  it  be  for  a  moment  supposed  that,  as  these  feel 
ings  increase,  the  Christian  becomes  more  and  more  unlike 
God?  Is  it  not  reasonable  to  believe  that  he  becomes 
more  and  more  his  image?  If,  then,  such  are  the  feel 
ings  of  God  even  towards  sinners,  can  he  be  satisfied,  in 
his  dealings  with  new-created  minds,  with  anything  short 
of  the  principles  of  honor  and  right  which  have  been 
stated?  Moreover,  if,  as  the  Christian  crucifies  all  self- 


STATEMENT    OF   MORAL    PRINCIPLES.  41 

ish  desires,  and  comes  under  the  full  influence  of  love 
he,  in  like  manner,  feels  more  keenly  the  principles  of 
honor  and  right  already  stated, —  and  this  is  the  fact, — 
then  is  there  not  conclusive  evidence  that  they  are  of 
God? 


CHAPTER  VI. 

ORTHODOX    AUTHORITIES. 

AT  this  point,  some  of  my  readers  are  probably  disposed 
to  raise  the  inquiry,  whether  the  preceding  views  of 
the  intuitive  decisions  of  the  human  mind  as  to  the  princi 
ples  of  honor  and  right  have  been,  in  fact,  recognized  as 
true  in  the  church  of  God.  To  such  I  reply,  they  have. 
This  will  be  made  fully  to  appear  during  the  progress  of 
the  investigation.  At  present,  it  is  enough  to  adduce  some 
evidence  on  those  points  which  are,  of  all  others,  to  us  the 
most  immediately  practical  and  important, —  I  refer  to  the 
demands  of  honor  and  right  as  to  the  proper  constitution 
and  circumstances  of  new-created  minds. 

The  evidence  which  I  shall  adduce,  in  order  to  be  above 
suspicion,  will  be  derived  from  those  who  are  high  in  repu 
tation  for  sound  and  orthodox  views. 

V  It  is  derived  from  their  discussions  and  decisions  as  to 
the  constitution  with  which  God  made  Adam,  and  the  cir 
cumstances  in  which  he  placed  him.  In  these  discussions, 
they  were  incidentally  called  to  meet,  on  its  real  merits, 
the  great  question,  what  was  due  from  God  to  a  new- 
created  mind,  and  what  was  a  fair  probation  of  such  a  mind  ? 
The  eminence  of  Turretin  as  a  champion  of  orthodoxy  is 
unquestioned.  What,  then,  teaches  he  on  these  points, 


ORTHODOX   AUTHORITIES.  43 

viewing  them  as  presented  to  God  for  practical  decision,  in 
the  <3ase  of  Adam  ? 

He  earnestly  defends  the  position  that  God  could  not, 
consistently  with  his  glory,  make  him  otherwise  than  with 
a  good  constitution,  well-ordered  powers,  and  original  right 
eousness,  so  that  there  should  be  in  him  no  inclination  to 
sin,  no  sinful  propensities,  and  no  conflict  of  the  inferior 
against  the  superior  powers ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
love  of  holiness  and  of  God,  and  a  strong  and  constant  pro 
pensity  to  all  that  is  right.  He  utterly  denied  that  God 
could  consistently  make  man  with  mere  natural  powers, 
which,  although  free  from  positive  sin,  tended  to  sin,  and 
then  produce  a  tendency  to  good  only  by  a  supernatural 
influence.  In  opposition  to  this,  he  held  that  on  Adam,  as 
a  new-created  being,  God  ought  to  confer  an  original  right 
eousness  properly  belonging  to  his  nature.  Hence,  in 
opposition  to  the  theory  of  Bellarmin,  and  many  of  the 
scholastic  divines,  that  original  righteousness  was  not  an 
essential  part  of  the  nature  of  Adam,  but  merely  a  super 
natural  gift,  he  says  : 

"  If  original  righteousness  was  supernatural,  it  follows 
that  it  was  the  natural  condition  of  Adam  to  be  devoid  of 
righteousness  (or  sanctity),  and  to  be  the  subject  of  all 
those  things  which  necessarily  must  exist  in  a  person 
capable  of  holiness,  and  yet  devoid  of  it ;  as,  for  example, 
ignorance,  inclination  to  vices,  concupiscence  of  the  flesh, 
rebellion  of  the  inferior  part  against  the  superior,  and  other 
things  of  the  kind,  which  Bellarmin  calls  diseases  and 
weaknesses  of  nature. 

"  BUT  THIS  CANNOT  BE  SAID  WITHOUT  ASCRIBING 
THEM  TO  HlM  WHO  IS  THE  AUTHOR  OF  NATURE,  AND 
WHO  WOULD  THUS  BE  REPRESENTED  AS  THE  AUTHOR  OF 

SIN."     (L.  5,  Q.  11,  $  9.) 


44  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

Against  the  same  ideas  he,  in  another  place,  thus  argues : 
'•'If  there  was  in  man  ANY  INCLINATION  TO  SIN  BY  NA 
TURE,  THEN  GOD  WOULD  BE  THE  AUTHOR  OF  IT,  AND  SO 
THE  SIN  ITSELF  AVOULD  BE  CHARGEABLE  UPON  GOD,  as 

before  proved."     (L.  9,  Q.  7,  $  3.) 

As  to  the  fallen  angels,  he  says :  t '  There  is  reason  to 
assert  that  some  protracted  interval  of  time  elapsed  between 
the  creation  of  the  angels,  which  is  the  work  of  God,  and 
their  revolt,  which  is  the  work  of  evil  spirits ;  otherwise,  IF 

THEIR  FIRST  ACTS  WERE  SINFUL,  THE  CAUSATION  OF  SIN 
WOULD  SEEM  TO  BE  ASCRIBED  TO  GOD,  AS  THE  NEXT  PRE 
CEDING  EFFICIENT  CAUSE."  (L.  9,  Q.  5,  $  2.) 

Thus  clearly  does  Turretin  inculcate  the  great  truth 
that  God  is  bound,  by  principles  of  equity  and  honor,  to  give 
to  all  new-created  beings  original  constitutions,  healthy, 
well-balanced,  and  tending  decidedly  and  effectually  towards 
good.  To  make  them  either  neutral,  or  with  constitutions 
tending  to  evil,  would  be  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  honor 
and  justice  of  God,  and  would  involve  him  in  the  guilt  and 
dishonor  of  sin.  What  can  be  more  absolutely  unequivocal 
and  decided  than  this  ? 

To  the  wide  reach  of  these  fundamental  principles  I 
would  call  particular  attention,  as  well  as  to  their  decision 
and  strength.  The  place  occupied  by  the  work  of  Turretin 
in  the  seminary  at  Princeton  is  well  known.  No  protest  has 
ever  been  issued  by  the  professors  there,  or  by  the  Presbyte 
rian  church,  against  these  views.  On  the  other  hand,  it  will 
soon  become  apparent  that  the  Princeton  divines  have  them 
selves  advanced  similar  views,  and  that  in  them  they  are 
sustained  by  the  standards  of  their  own  church. 

Views  similar  to  those  of  Turretin  may  be  found  strongly 
expressed  in  the  work  of  Dr.  Watts  on  the  Ruin  and  Re 
covery  of  Mankind,  in  reply  to  Dr.  J.  Taylor.  In  consid- 


ORTHODOX   AUTHORITIES.  45 

ering  what  is  due  from  the  Creator  to  a  new-created  being, 
he  states,  at  some  length,  that  he  ought  to  confer  on  him  a 
perfection  of  natural  powers,  both  of  body  and  spirit,  con 
sidered  as  united  and  adapted  to  his  present  state.  Even  if 
they  did  not  involve  all  the  perfections  which  God  can  con 
fer,  or  man  produce  by  cultivation,  yet,  at  least,  they  ought 
to  be  perfectly  sufficient  for  his  present  well-being  and  sta 
tion  ;  that  his  bodily  powers  should  be  in  perfect  order,  his 
reason  clear,  his  judgment  uncorrupted,  his  conscience  up 
right  and  sensible  ;  that  he  should  have  no  bias  to  sin,  but  a 
bias  to  holiness,  that  is,  to  the  love  of  God  and  of  man ;  that 
there  should  be  an  entire  subordination  of  the  inferior  to 
the  superior  powers, —  indeed,  that  he  should  have  a  concre- 
ated  principle  of  holiness ;  —  in  short,  that  he  should  have 
the  image  of  God,  not  merely  natural  and  political,  but 
moral.  He  ought,  he  concedes,  in  order  to  a  trial,  still  to 
have  free  will,  so  as  not  to  be  constrained  to  obey,  and  ren 
dered  incapable  of  sin  ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  he  should 
have  a  superior  propensity  to  good,  and  a  full  sufficiency  of 
power  to  preserve  himself  in  a  state  of  obedience  and  love 
to  his  Creator.  In  a  marginal  note  he  thus  proves  that 
God  ought  to  give  to  a  new-created  mind  a  preponderating 
bias  to  holiness : 

' '  If  the  new-made  creature  had  not  a  propensity  to  love 
and  obey  God,  but  was  in  a  state  of  mere  indifference  to 
good  or  evil,  then  his  being  put  into  such  an  union  with 
flesh  and  blood,  among  a  thousand  temptations,  would  have 
been  an  overbalance  on  the  side  of  vice.  But  our  reason 
can  never  suppose  that  God,  the  wise,  just  and  good,  would 
have  placed  a  new-made  creature  in  such  a  situation." 

These  statements  are  so  clear  that  they  need  no  comment. 
It  is,  also,  a  matter  of  great  interest  that  they  have  been 
fully  endorsed  by  John  Wesley,  the  great  founder  of  Moth- 


46  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

odism.  When  Dr.  John  Taylor  made  his  great  assault  on 
Original  Sin,  Wesley,  as  well  as  Watts,  came  forth  in  its 
defence.  On  the  points  then  at  issue,  he  avowed  himself  as 
at  one  with  Dr.  Watts  and  the  Calvinists ;  and  defended  this 
position  of  Dr.  Watts,  as  a  self-evident  truth,  and  pro 
nounced  the  argument  of  Dr.  Taylor  against  it  to  be  utterly 
powerless  and  insufficient.  He  says  : 

"This  argument  cannot  be  answered,  unless  it  can  be 
showed  either,  1st,  that  in  such  a  situation  there  would  not 
have  been  an  overbalance  on  the  side  of  vice,  or,  2d,  that  to 
place  a  new-made  creature  in  a  situation  where  there  was 
such  an  overbalance  was  consistent  with  the  wisdom,  justice 
and  goodness  of  God.  But,  instead  of  showing,  or  even 
attempting  to  show  this,  you  feebly  say,  '  I  do  not  think  the 
reason  of  man  by  any  means  sufficient  to  direct  God  in  what 
state  to  make  moral  agents.  But,  however  Adam's  propen 
sities  and  temptations  were'  balanced,  he  had  freedom  to 
choose  evil  as  well  as  good.'  He  had.  But  this  is  no 
answer  to  the  argument,  which,  like  the  former,  remains  in 
its  full  force.  How  could  a  wise,  just  and  good  God  place 
his  creature  in  such  a  state  as  that  the  scale  of  evil  should 
preponderate  ?  Although  it  be  allowed,  he  is,  in  a  measure, 
free  still, —  the  other  scale  does  not  '  fly  up  and  kick  the 
beam.'  " 

Here  Wesley  perfectly  accords  with  Turretin,  as  well  as 
with  Watts,  in  holding  that  to  make  new-created  beings 
either  neutral,  or  with  a  preponderance  towards  evil,  would 
be  highly  unjust  and  dishonorable  in  God.  The  scales 
ought  not  to  be  merely  balanced,  but  the  preponderance 
towards  good  should  be  decided  and  powerful. 

Unless  these  original  rights  had  been  in  some  way  for 
feited,  Dr.  Watts,  also,  regarded  it  as  in  the  highest  degree 
dishonorable  in  God  ever  to  disregard  them. 


ORTHODOX    AUTHORITIES.  47 

The  Princeton  divines,  in  reality,  advance  similar  views, 
although  not  as  openly,  and  with  as  much  fulness  and 
strength,  as  Turretin,  Watts  and  Wesley.  First,  they 
decide  that  to  every  new-created  being  a  probation  is  due. 
"  Is  it  not  necessary,"  they  say,  "  that  a  moral  being  shall 
have  a  probation  before  his  fate  is  decided?  "  Again ;  they 
state  what  is  essential  to  a  fair  probation.  "  A  probation, 
to  be  FAIR,  must  afford  as  favorable  a  prospect  of  a  happy 
as  of  an  unhappy  conclusion."  Their  ideas,  however,  of 
what  is  involved  in  such  a  fair  probation,  though  not  fully 
stated,  may  be  clearly  inferred  from  the  fact  that  they  refer 
to  the  probation  of  our  first  parents  as  a  fair  one.  Their 
views  of  the  moral  constitution  necessary  for  such  a  proba 
tion  are,  no  doubt,  in  accordance  with  the  decision  of  the 
standards  of  their  own  church,  as  expressed  in  the  following 
words  of  the  larger  catechism :  "  God  endued  them  with 
living,  reasonable  and  immortal  souls,  made  them  after  his 
own  image,  in  knowledge,  righteousness  and  holiness,  hav 
ing  the  law  of  God  written  in  their  hearts,  and  power  to 
fulfil  it,  with  dominion  over  the  creatures,  yet  subject  to 
fall."  (Larger  Catechism,  Q.  17.)  This,  then,  is  the 
essential  basis  of  a  fair  probation.  The  statement  of  the 
Confession  of  Faith  is,  in  essence,  the  same,  except  that  it 
gives  a  more  expanded  view  of  the  state  of  the  will  of  our 
first  parents,  asserting  that  they  u  were  under  a  possibility 
of  transgressing,  being  left  to  the  liberty  of  their  own  will, 
which  was  subject  unto  change."  (Chap.  iv.  $  2.) 

These  statements,  it  is  plain,  involve,  in  our  first  parents, 
as  the  essential  basis  of  a  fair  probation,  a  good  original 
constitution,  well-proportioned  powers,  and  a  decided  and 
powerful  bias  to  good,  resulting,  at  first,  in  actual  and  per 
fect  obedience  to  the  law  of  God. 

Satisfactory  as  is  this  implication  of  the  views  of  the 


48  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

Princeton  divines,  yet  they  are  exhibited  still  more  clearly 
by  their  statements  with  respect  to  an  original  bias  to  evil. 
They  teach  us  that  it  is  the  greatest  of  all  calamities,  and 
that  it  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  existence  of  a  fair 
and  honorable  probation. 

"What  greater  evil  for  moral  and  immortal  beings  can 
there  be,"  say  they,  "  than  to  be  born  contaminated  in 
their  moral  nature,  or  under  a  divine  constitution  which 
secures  the  universality  and  certainty  of  sin,  and  that,  too, 
with  undeviating  and  remorseless  effect?  It  is,  as  Cole 
ridge  well  says.  '  an  outrage  on  common  sense '  to  affirm  that 
it  is  no  evil  for  men  to  be  placed,  on  their  probation^  under 
such  circumstances  that  not  one  of  ten  thousand  millions 
ever  escaped  sin  and  condemnation  to  eternal  death."  On 
these  grounds  they  elsewhere  assert  that  men,  if  they  have 
had  no  other  or  better  probation  than  is  involved  in  such  a 
state  of  things,  have,  in  reality,  had  no  probation  at  all. 
Such  a  view,  Prof.  Hodge  assures  us,  "represents  the  race 
as  being  involved  in  ruin  and  condemnation,  without  having 
the  slightest  probation."  (Com.  on  Rom.,  p.  227,  1st  ed.) 
The  Princeton  reviewers,  as  we  have  seen,  have  decided 
that  ' '  a  probation,  to  be  fair,  must  afford  as  favorable  a 
prospect  of  a  happy  as  of  an  unhappy  conclusion."  Ac 
cordingly,  as  consistency  requires,  immediately  after,  in 
view  of  the  supposition  "  that  men  are  brought  up  to  their 
trial  under  a  divine  constitution  which  secures  the  certainty 
of  their  sinning,"  they  ask,  with  great  emphasis,  "  Is  this  a 
fair  trial?  "  (Theol.  Ess.,  vol.  I.  p.  159.) 

In  the  preceding  statements  of  Turretin,  Watts,  the 
Westminster  divines,  and  the  Princeton  divines,  is  involved 
all  that  I  have  claimed  on  this  point,  in  my  expose  of  the 
principles  of  iionor  and  right.  Indeed,  the  strength  of  their 
statements  rather  exceeds  my  own. 


ORTHODOX    AUTHORITIES.  49 

I  shall  not  at  this  time  add  any  further  evidence  that  the 
principles  which  I  have  stated  have  been  generally  recog 
nized  as  true  by  the  church  of  God.  At  a  subsequent  time 
I  shall  resume  the  subject,  and  prove  that  the  Reformers, 
as  well  as  Augustine  and  other  distinguished  champions  of 
orthodoxy,  from  age  to  age,  have  advanced  as  self-evident 
similar  views  as  to  the  demands  of  the  principles  of  honor 
and  right  upon  the  great  Creator,  with  reference  to  new- 
created  minds. 

It  would  have  been  easy,  instead  of  going  into  so  much 
detail  in  proof  of  my  positions,  simply  to  have  referred,  in  a 
general  way,  to  Augustine,  the  Reformers,  the  Puritans, 
and  their  consistent  and  exact  followers,  as  holding  the  views 
which  have  been  set  forth  concerning  the  obligations  of  God 
to  new-created  minds.  But,  though  the  reference  would 
have  been  well  founded,  it  would  have  excited  less  attention, 
and  awakened  less  interest. 

It  was  not,  however,  for  the  public  good  that  the  thing 
should  be  thus  lightly  passed  over.  It  has  been  the  great 
evil  of  other  ages  that  principles  like  these,  although  avowed, 
have  not  been  consistently  carried  out.  They  need  to  be 
exalted,  made  prominent,  and  insisted  on.  If  true  at  all, 
th«y  are  to  all  created  beings  the  most  fundamental  and 
most  momentous  truths  in  the  universe  of  God.  They  are 
like  a  full-orbed  sun,  in  the  centre  of  all  created  existence. 
No  system  can  be  truly  seen  but  in  their  light.  No  system 
can  be  true  which  really  contravenes  them.  For  God  is 
all  glorious,  all  holy,  all  just,  all  honorable,  all  good.  He 
cannot  but  observe  the  true  principles  of  honor  and  of  right. 
For,  though  he  often  dwelleth  in  the  thick  darkness,  and 
deep  clouds  are  his  pavilion,  yet  now  and  evermore  right 
eousness  and  judgment  are  the  habitation  of  his  throne. 

Thus  has  one  of  the  great  moving  ppwers  of  Christianity 
5 


50  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

been  developed  and  set  forth.  It  is  now  necessary  to  set 
forth  the  other,  as  it  has  been  stated  by  those  held  in  the 
highest  reputation  as  the  true  friends  and  defenders  of  the 
gospel.  I  refer  to  the  great  Reformers  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  and  to  those  who  glory  in  being  deemed  their  true 
followers. 


CHAPTER    VII. 

FACTS     AS     TO     HUMAN     DEPRAVITY. 

IN  order  to  present  the  conflict  which  is  under  considera 
tion  in  its  full  strength,  it  is  necessary  to  place  in  contrast 
with  the  principles  of  honor  and  right  which  have  been 
developed  the  most  radical  view  which  has  been  extensively 
given  of  the  fallen  and  ruined  condition  of  man. 

But,  before  doing  this,  it  is  expedient  to  prepare  the  way 
by  a  brief  statement  of  some  conceded  facts,  by  which,  even 
independently  of  the  testimony  of  the  Bible,  the  necessity 
of  some  such  radical  view  is  made  apparent.  The  facts  in 
question  lie  upon  the  surface  of  the  history  of  this  world, 
and  are  witnessed  to  by  the  observation  and  experience  of  all 
men.  They  are  by  no  means  such  as  our  recent  survey  of 
the  principles  of  honor  and  right  would  have  led  us  to 
expect.  For,  if  the  demands  of  these  principles  on  God, 
with  reference  to  new-created  minds,  are  such  as  have  been 
stated,  we  ought  a  priori  to  expect  to  find  in  this  world  a 
race  whose  moral  constitutions,  powers  and  tendencies,  should 
correspond  with  the  principles  which  have  been  laid  down, 
and  whose  history  should  illustrate  and  prove  the  existence 
of  strong  and  predominant  tendencies  to  good.  We  ought 
to  expect  that,  although  some  might,  through  an  abuse  of 
freedom,  fall  into  sin,  the  greater  part  wrould  lead  holy  and 
perfect  lives.  That  harmony,  unity,  brotherly  love,  pure 
morality,  and  an  intelligent  and  devoted  love  of  God,  would 


52  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

characterize  the  great  majority  of  men,  giving  a  holy  and 
lovely  character  alike  to  individuals  and  to  communities. 
That  pride,  malice,  envy,  falsehood,  contentions  and  wars, 
would  be  regarded  as  strange  and  painful  anomalies  in  the 
history  of  this  world. 

It  is  needless  to  say  that  such  anticipations,  if  formed  by 
a  visitor  to  this  world,  ignorant  of  its  real  history,  would 
soon  be  dissipated  by  a  painful  view  of  the  stern  realities  of 
actual  human  life.  The  word  of  God,  the  consciousness  of 
every  Christian,  and  the  dark  records  of  vice  and  crime,  of 
fraud  and  violence,  of  war  and  slavery,  of  remorse  and  woe. 
which  fill  the  history  of  this  world,  too  clearly  and  painfully 
testify  that  such  ideal  conceptions  of  human  excellence  must 
be  regarded  as  nothing  but  the  baseless  fabric  of  a  vision. 

Indeed,  so  plain  are  the  mournful  realities,  that  the  most 
eminent  Unitarian  divines  do  not  hesitate  to  state  them  with 
an  eloquence  and  power  which  cannot  be  resisted.  That  I 
may  avoid  even  the  appearance  of  exaggeration,  I  will  state 
the  facts  in  the  words  of  such  men  as  President  Sparks, 
Professor  Norton,  Dr.  Burnap,  and  Dr.  Dewey.  I  will, 
moreover,  take  their  statements  from  works  designed  to 
oppose  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  depravity,  that  it  may  be 
the  more  evident  how  clear  and  undoubted  are  the  real 
facts  which  exhibit  the  actual  depravity  of  man.  Dr.  G.  W. 
Burnap,  of  Baltimore,  in  an  able  work,  designed  to  evince 
the  rectitude  of  human  nature,  in  opposition  to  the  Calvin 
istic  doctrine  of  depravity,  does  not  hesitate  to  make  the  fol 
lowing  clear  and  decided  statement  as  to  actual  depravity  : 

"  The  sinfulness  of  mankind  no  man  in  his  senses  has 
ever  pretended  to  deny.  '  No  man  liveth,  and  sinneth  not.' 
No  human  being,  with  the  exception  of  the  Saviour,  has 
ever  lived  long  enough  to  develop  the  moral  nature,  without 
being  conscious  of  having  done  wrong. 


FACTS   AS   TO    HUMAN    DEPRAVITY.  58 

"  The  sinfulness  of  mankind  has  been  demonstrated  by 
the  prevalence  of  wars,  since  the  first  recorded  history  of 
our  race.  War  transforms  a  human  being  into  a  fiend,  and 
leads  to  the  commission  of  every  crime,  and  is  itself  the 
greatest  of  all  crimes.  The  number  of  people  who  have 
perished  in  war  is,  perhaps,  ten  times  as  great  as  now  exists 
on  earth.  The  quantity  of  property  consumed  and  destroyed 
in  war  is,  not  unlikely,  more  than  a  hundred  times  as  much 
as  all  mankind  now  possess. 

11  The  sinfulness  of  mankind  has  been  demonstrated  by 
the  fearful  amount  of  sensuality  that  has  existed.  The 
world  has  always  been  filled  with  the  wretched  victims  of 
intemperance.  It  may  safely  be  said,  that  most  of  the  dis 
eases  which  have  afflicted  mankind,  and  shortened  human 
life,  have  been  produced  by  the  unlawful  or  excessive 
indulgence  of  the  appetites. 

11  The  sinfulness  of  mankind  has  been  demonstrated  by 
the  social  unkindness  that  has  always  prevailed,  the  cruel 
abuse  of  power  which  has  reigned  since  the  beginning  of 
time,  so  pathetically  described  in  the  book  from  which  our 
text  is  taken.  '  So  I  returned  and  considered  all  the  op 
pressions  that  are  done  under  the 'sun;  and,  behold,  the 
tears  of  such  as  were  oppressed,  and  they  had  no  comforter, 
and  on  the  side  of  their  oppressors  there  was  power,  but 
they  had  no  comforter.'  So  much  was  the  author's  sensi 
bility  shocked  and  his  pity  moved,  that  he  '  praised  the 
dead  which  are  already  dead  more  than  the  living  which  are 
yet  alive,'  and  thought  it  was  better  never  to  have  been 
born  than  to  have  an  existence  in  a  world  so  full  of 
injustice. 

"  The  sinfulness  of  mankind  is  demonstrated  by  the  exist 
ence  of  laws  and  courts  and  prisons  and  punishments. 
Their  very  purpose  is  to  restrain  man  from  sin,  and  to 
5* 


54  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

defend  one  man  from  the  injustice  of  another.  The  evi 
dences  of  man's  sinfulness  meet  us  at  every  turn,  in  the 
anger  we  witness,  in  the  profaneness  we  hear,  in  the  theft 
against  which  we  bar  our  doors,  in  the  conflagrations  we 
behold  by  night  lighted  up  by  the  incendiary's  torch,  in  the 
wretched  outcasts  whom  vice  has  driven  forth  to  die  of 
misery  and  want.  Such  are  the  overwhelming  and  unde 
niable  evidences  of  the  sinfulness  of  mankind." 

Dr.  Sparks,  also,  in  his  Letters  to  Dr.  Miller,  in  opposi 
tion  to  Calvinism, —  a  work  of  decided  ability, —  says,  with 
reference  to  Unitarian  divines,  "  They  preach  that  all  men 
are  depraved,  deeply  depraved,  and  sinners  in  the  sight  of 
God, —  not  by  the  will  and  appointment  of  their  Creator, 
but  by  their  own  choice,  their  neglect  of  duty,  and  their 
obstinate  disobedience.  There  is  no  theme,  in  fact,  on 
which  Unitarian  preachers  dwell  more  than  on  the  moral 
depravity  of  man.  This  is  the  moral  disease  which  they 
believe  the  religion  of  Jesus  was  intended  to  heal."  (p. 
290.) 

The  testimony  of  Prof.  Norton  to  the  facts  of  the  case  is 
still  more  ample  and  unequivocal.  In  an  article  entitled 
"  Views  of  Calvinism,"  containing  an  argument  of  great 
vigor  against  that  system,  he  says  :  { '  If  we  look  abroad, 
beyond  the  confines  of  Christianity,  to  the  past  history  and 
present  state  of  the  world,  we  shall  find  that  it  is  on  the 
subject  of  religion  that  the  most  portentous  and  pernicious 
errors  have  prevailed, —  errors  of  superstition  and  errors  of 
virtual  atheism, —  on  the  one  hand,  conceptions  of  the  spir 
itual  world  disastrously  false,  and,  on  the  other,  an  abnega 
tion  of  all  but  what  is  present  and  material."  These  state- 
merits  he  confirms  by  a  reference  to  Buddhism,  "  the  mon 
strous  mythology  and  all -pervading  superstitions  of  the 
Hindoos,"  the  systems  of  Mahomet  and  Confucius,  and 


FACTS   AS   TO    HUMAN   DEPRAVITY.  55 

finally  a  great  miscellaneous  multitude  of  various  supersti 
tions  and  idolatries,  into  which  any  proper  religious  belief 
or  sentiment  rarely  enters.  Of  the  followers  of  these 
"  most  portentous  and  pernicious  errors  "  he  says  :  "  These 
classes  constitute  a  great  majority  of  mankind."  (p.  209.) 

He  then  turns  to  the  Romish  and  the  Greek  churches, 
and  finds  in  them  by  far  the  greater  part  of  those  numbered 
as  Christians.  Concerning  them,  he  says :  * '  Intelligent 
Protestants  regard  the  doctrines  of  either  church  as  a  mass 
of  gross  errors,  accumulated  and  consolidated  during  centu 
ries  of  ignorance  and  superstition."  (p.  210.) 

Passing  from  these  to  the  Protestants,  he  represents  the 
great  majority  of  them  as  holding  a  system  at  war  with 
reason  and  the  character  of  God, —  a  system  which  it  is  his 
main  purpose,  in  two  articles,  to  represent  as  pernicious  in 
a  high  degree,  yea,  as  even  a  system  of  blasphemy.  (p. 
107.) 

As  to  the  moral  condition  of  Christendom,  he  uses  the 
following  language : 

"  Are  we  to  conclude  that  it  is  the  part  of  a  wise  man  to 
turn  away  his  eyes  from  the  moral  and  religious  ignorance, 
the  debasement  and  annihilation  of  intellect,  which  exist  in 
the  Christian  world  ?  Should  we  look  with  philosophical  in 
difference  on  the  vices  and  selfishness  which  spread  through 
all  classes  of  society,  on  the  physical  and  moral  wretched 
ness  of  the  poor  and  the  crimes  which  it  generates,  on  op 
pression  and  tyranny,  and  the  maddening  passions  which 
they  are  exasperating?  Should  we  regard  these  things  as 
the  necessary  condition  of  humanity?" 

With  regard  to  the  actual  influence  exerted  even  on 
Christian  communities  by  the  simple,  sublime  and  practical 
principles  of  Christianity,  he  uses  the  following  unequivocal 
language : 


56  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

"Is  it  impossible  to  render  the  practical  operation  of 
these  truths  more  general  and  effective  ?  Is  it  impossible, 
when  religion  joins  her  voice  to  that  which  experience  has 
been  so  long  uttering,  to  make  men  believe  and  feel,  at 
last,  that  their  duty  and  their  interest  are  the  same ;  that 
the  laws  of  God  are  but  directions  which  he  has  given  us, 
in  his  infinite  wisdom  and  mercy,  for  attaining  our  highest 
happiness ;  that  it  is  better  to  be  just  and  benevolent,  hon 
ored  and  beloved,  than  to  be  selfish,  unjust  and  cruel, 
despised,  distrusted  and  hated ;  that  it  is  unwise  to  sacri 
fice  a  great  future  good  to  a  present  indulgence,  which 
leaves  behind  it  dissatisfaction  and  repentance  ;  and  that  ho 
who  submits  the  moral  part  of  his  nature  to  the  animal  is 
degrading  himself,  and  destroying  his  best  capacities  for 
enjoyment  ?  Is  it  impossible  that  the  generality  of  men  in 
a  Christian  land  should  be  brought  to  act  as  if  they  really 
believed  these  truths,  and  truths  such  as  these  ?  Whether 
it  be  so  or  not,  yet  remains  to  be  determined.  The  experi 
ment  has  never  been  made." 

Of  course,  the  moral  state  of  the  heathen  world  is  still 
worse. 

To  complete  the  dark  picture,  and  to  take  away  all  excuse 
for  this  state  of  things,  he  informs  us  that  the  reason 
of  these  mournful  results  is  not  that  the  truths  of  Chris 
tianity  are  obscure,  or  beyond  the  comprehension  of  the 
masses  of  mankind : 

"Are  the  truths  for  which  we  contend  intrinsically  diffi 
cult  to  be  understood  ?  They  are  not  so.  They  are  as 
simple  and  intelligible  as  they  are  sublime.  The  prospect 
which  true  religion  opens  to  the  mind  has  a  beautiful  and 
solemn  grandeur,  to  which  that  of  the  visible  heavens  affords 
but  a  faint  comparison ;  but  it  is  with  one  as  with  the  other, 
—  we  need  i.ot  travel  far,  nor  search  for  our  point  of  view, 


FACTS    AS    TO    HUMAN    DEPRAVITY.  57 

in  order  to  behold  all  that  is  given  us  to  see  of  the  moral  or 
of  the  physical  universe." 

Such,  then,  according  to  Professor  Norton,  is  the  present 
wide-spread  moral  depravity  and  degradation  of  the  human 
race,  after  all  that  God  has  done  by  the  light  of  nature,  by 
his  providence,  by  revelation,  and  by  the  various  and  power 
ful  means  of  grace,  to  sanctify  and  elevate  individuals  and 
society;  moreover,  no  one  will  pretend  that  the  state  of 
things  has  been  any  better  for  six  thousand  years  past. 

Indeed,  if  all  that  Professor  Norton  says  in  the  preceding 
passages  concerning  Protestant  communities  were  true,  I  do 
not  see  how  to  avoid  the  conclusion  that  the  picture  Avhich 
he  gives  of  the  prevalence  and  power  of  error  and  actual 
depravity  in  the  world  is  darker  even  than  that  given  by 
the  Calvinists,  whose  doctrine  of  depravity  he  opposes. 
Truly,  if  these  views  are  correct,  the  words  of  our  Saviour, 
"  Strait  is  the  gate  and  narrow  is  the  way  that  leadeth  unto 
life,  and  few  there  be  that  find  it,"  are  true  to  an  extent  far 
beyond  what  we  had  supposed.  But  we  regard  this  part  of 
the  picture  as  too  deeply  colored.  In  many  portions  of 
the  Protestant  world  the  true  gospel  has  exerted  great 
power  in  producing,  love,  faith,  self-denial,  benevolent  en 
terprise,  and  a  holy  life.  With  this  exception,  we  admit 
the  correctness  of  the  picture ;  and,  if  it  is  correct,  then 
how  deep  and  dark  are  the  shades  of  error  and  sin  which 
rest  upon  and  brood  over  this  unhappy  world  ! 

The  testimony  of  Dr.  Dewey  is  no  less  unequivocal  and 
decided.  In  a  professed  and  formal  statement  of  the 
Unitarian  belief,  elaborately  finished,  he  thus  speaks  : 

"  We  believe  in  human  depravity  ;  and  a  very  serious 
and  saddening  belief  it  is,  too,  that  we  hold  on  this  point. 
We  believe  in  the  very  great  depravity  of  mankind, —  in  the 
exceeding  depravation  of  human  nature.  We  believe  that 


58  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

'the  heart  is  deceitful  above  all  things,  and  desperately 
wicked.'  We  believe  all  that  is  meant  when  it  is  said  of 
the  world  in  the  time  of  Noah  that  '  all  the  imaginations 
of  men,  and  all  the  thoughts  of  their  hearts,  were  evil,  and 
only  evil  continually.'  We  believe  all  that  Paul  meant  when 
he  said,  speaking  of  the  general  character  of  the  heathen 
world  in  his  time,  '  There  is  none  that  is  righteous,  no,  not 
one  ;  there  is  none  that  understandeth,  there  is  none  that 
seeketh  after  God ;  they  have  all  gone  out  of  the  way,  there 
is  none  that  doeth  good,  or  is  a  doer  of  good,  no,  not  one ; 
with  their  tongues  they  use  deceit,  and  the  poison  of  asps  is 
under  their  lips  ;  whose  mouth  is  full  of  cursing  and  bitter 
ness  ;  and  the  way  of  peace  have  they  not  known,  and  there 
is  no  fear  of  God  before  their  eyes.'  We  believe  that  this 
was  not  intended  to  be  taken  without  qualifications,  for  Paul, 
as  we  shall  soon  have  occasion  to  observe,  made  qualifica 
tions.  It  was  true  in  the  general.  But  it  is  not  the 
ancient  heathen  world  alone  that  we  regard  as  filled  with 
evil.  We  believe  that  the  world  now,  taken  in  the  mass,  is 
a  very,  a  very  bad  world ;  that  the  sinfulness  of  the  world 
is  dreadful  and  horrible  to  consider ;  that  the  nations  ought 
to  be  covered  with  sackcloth  and  mourning  for  it ;  that  they 
are  filled  with  misery  by  it.  Why,  can  any  man  look 
abroad  upon  the  countless  miseries  inflicted  by  selfishness, 
dishonesty,  slander,  strife,  war ;  upon  the  boundless  woes 
of  intemperance,  libertinism,  gambling,  crime ;  can  any 
man  look  upon  all  this,  with  the  thousand  minor  diversities 
and  shadings  of  guilt  and  guilty  sorrow,  and  feel  that  he 
could  write  any  less  dreadful  sentence  against  the  world  than 
Paul  has  written  ?  Not  believe  in  human  depravity, — great, 
general,  dreadful  depravity  !  Why,  a  man  must  be  a  fool, 
nay,  a  stock,  or  a  stone,  not  to  believe  in  it !  He  has  no 
eyes,  he  has  no  senses,  he  has  no  perceptions,  if  he  refuses 


FACTS    AS   TO    HUMAN    DEPRAVITY.  59 

to  believe  in  it !  "  (Controversial  Discourses,  pp.  16 — 18.) 
What  can  be  more  explicit  than  this  testimony  to  the  deep 
and  general  depravity  of  our  race  ? 

It  ought,  however,  to  be  distinctly  stated  that  Dr.  Dewey, 
and,  indeed,  all  the  writers  whom  I  have  quoted,  earnestly 
repudiate  the  idea  that  this  development  of  sin  implies  in 
man  a  sinful  nature  in  the  obvious  and  literal  sense  of 
those  words.  They  regard  such  an  idea  as  highly  dishonor 
able  to  God,  and  as  diminishing,  or  even  annihilating,  the 
criminality  of  sin ;  nor,  as  we  are  informed  by  Dr.  Dewey, 
do  they  profess  to  believe  "in  what  is  technically  called 
total  depravity '."  The  origin  of  sin  they  ascribe  to  the 
perversion  of  free  agency  by  limited,  imperfect  beings,  in  a 
world  of  temptation,  bodily  and  mental. 

There  is,  nevertheless,  in  this  world  an  extent,  a  power, 
a  preponderance  and  a  stubbornness  of  sin,  for  which  a 
solution  so  simple  and  obvious  does  not  seem  to  account. 
This  was  felt  and  conceded,  even  by  Dr.  Dewey.  Accord 
ingly,  while  insisting  that  the  origin  of  sin  is  plain,  he  says. 
"The  extent  to  which  these  evils  go  is,  doubtless,  a  problem 
that  I  cannot  solve.  There  are  shadows  upon  the  world 
that  we  cannot  penetrate ;  masses  of  sin  and  misery  that 
overwhelm  us  with  wonder  and  awe." 

This  very  impressive  and  affecting  statement  of  Dr. 
Dewey  will  now  prepare  us  to  see  why  there  are  so  many 
who  cannot  rest  content  in  the  solution  which  he,  and  others 
of  the  same  school,  give  of  the  origin  of  this  state  of 
things.  The  extent  and  the  power  of  evil  in  this  world  are 
so  great,  even  as  conceded  by  Unitarians,  that  they  cannot 
find  an  adequate  solution  of  them  in  the  mere  free  agency 
and  temptation  of  uncorrupted  minds.  The  facts  stated 
are  so  unlike  the  action  of  upright  and  undepraved  minds, 
that  they  at  once  suggest  the  idea  that,  in  some  way.  the 


60  CONFLICT  OF  AGES. 

human  race  has  come  into  a  fallen  and  ruined  state,  even 
before  action.  Certainly  the  dark  and  mournful  facts  which 
have  been  stated  are  not  like  the  action  of  minds  possessing 
a  sound  moral  constitution,  well-balanced  powers,  and  pre 
dominating  tendencies  to  holiness  and  truth. 

Nor,  in  view  of  such  facts,  ought  it  to  be  deemed  won 
derful  if  efforts  should  be  made  to  find  a  deeper  and  more 
radical  cause  for  results  so  calamitous  and  so  strange.  The 
most  thorough  of  these  efforts  I  shall  now  proceed  to  con 
sider.  I  shall  show,  moreover,  that  the  impulse  to  the 
effort  is  in  the  highest  degree  honorable,  even  if  it  does 
happen  to  involve  those  who  make  it  in  a  conflict  with  those 
principles  of  honor  and  right  which  they  themselves  avow 
and  defend. 


CHAPTER   VIII. 

RADICAL    VIEW     OF    THE    RUIN     Ol1    MAN. 

IT  is  a  principle  of  common  seiise,  and  will,  at  least  in 
theory,  be  conceded  by  all,  that,  before  the  moral  diseases 
of  man  can  be  thoroughly  healed,  their  true  nature,  power 
and  depth,  must  be  understood.  Moreover,  in  order  to  save 
him  from  the  evils  and  perils  of  his  present  state,  it  ought 
to  be  fully  known  what  those  evils  and  perils  are.  If  he 
has  enemies,  visible  or  invisible,  it  ought  to  be  known  who 
they  are,  and  what  is  their  power. 

Under  the  influence  of  these  convictions  a  large  class  of 
benevolent  Christian  minds  have  acted,  in  all  ages.  They 
have  felt  that  the  purest  benevolence  which  can  be  exercised 
towards  man  demands  the  most  full  and  faithful  statement 
of  his  fallen  and  ruined  condition  as  a  sinner,  however  dark 
the  views  which  may  be  thus  presented.  Those  who  have 
presented  such  views  have  commonly  been  men  of  deep 
Christian  experience,  like  Augustine,  the  Reformers,  the 
Puritans,  and  Edwards.  To  such  men  the  deep  depravity 
of  their  own  hearts  is  not  merely  a  matter  of  doctrinal 
theory,  but  of  profound  experimental  knowledge.  To  every 
statement  of  the  Word  of  God,  even  the  most  humiliating, 
there  is  an  unhesitating  response  within.  Moreover,  upon 
this  deep  inward  knowledge  of  their  fallen  state  is  based,  in 
their  judgment,  that  whole  work  of  new  creation  in  right 
eousness  of  which  they  are  no  less  conscious.  In  all  cases, 
t> 


62  CONFLICT    OF  AGES. 

the  knowledge  of  the  first  is  regarded  as  the  measure  of  the 
progress  of  the  second. 

Hence,  the  predominating  influence  under  which  they 
ever  act  is  a  desire  of  THOROUGHNESS  in  disclosing  the 
ruined  state  of  man  before  he  is  renovated  by  the  grace  of 
God.  Fearful  of  healing  slightly  the  wounds  of  the  people 
of  God,  they  have  earnestly  sought  to  probe  them  to  their 
deepest  recesses.  Believing  the  heart  to  be  deceitful  above 
all  things  and  desperately  wicked,  they  have  felt  that  the 
danger  was  very  great  of  being  deceived  by  superficial 
views  of  the  nature  and  extent  of  sin.  Knowing  that  none 
but  God  can  thoroughly  search  the  heart,  they  have  besought 
him  clearly  to  reveal  to  them  its  depths  of  evil.  When 
God,  as  they  believe,  in  answer  to  such  prayers,  and 
through  his  word,  providences  and  spirit,  has  given  to  such 
a  full  and  experimental  development  of  what  they  have 
sought,  it  has  led  them  to  insist  much  on  three  leading 
points,  as  all  involved  in  a  full  view  of  the  fallen  and 
ruined  condition  of  man. 

1.  His  deep  innate  depravity  as  an  individual. 

2.  His  subjection  to  the  power  of  depraved  social  organ 
izations,  called,  taken  collectively,  the  world. 

3.  His   subjection   to   the   power  of   unseen  malignant 
spirits,  who  are  centralized  and  controlled  by  Satan,  their 
leader  and  head. 

In  considering  the  first  point,  they  have  not  rested  content 
with  the  mere  fact  that  all  men  actually  sin  from  the  com 
mencement  of  moral  agency,  but  have  sought  to  penetrate 
deeper,  and  to  find  in  the  antecedent  nature  of  man  a  suffi 
cient  cause  for  this  sad  result,  so  uniform,  yet  so  unreason 
able.  The  consequence  has  been  a  very  general  belief  of  a 
properly  depraved  nature  in  man  anterior  to  action  of  any 
J  kind.  They  have  conceived  of  the  human  mind  as  a  kind 


RADICAL  VIEW   OF   TIIE   RUIN    OF  MAN.  63 

of  seed-plot  of  sin,  so  to  say,  in  which  the  seeds  and  germs 
and  roots  of  sin  were  thick  sown,  and  needed  only  exposure 
to  the  influence  of  the  atmosphere  and  warmth  of  active  life 
to  cause  them  to  germinate,  spring  up,  and  bear  fruit. 

The  highest  statements  on  these  points  were  undoubtedly 
made  by  the  Reformers  and  their  immediate  followers,  in 
the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries.  In  their  oppo 
sition  to  what  they  regarded  the  Pelagian  tendencies  of  the 
Romish  church,  they  transcended  even  the  statements  of 
Augustine,  in  some  points.  I  refer,  in  particular,  to  their 
doctrine  concerning  the  sinfulness  of  concupiscence  (that  is, 
propensity  to  sin)  after  baptism,  and  the  predestination  of 
the  fall  of  Adam.  In  the  Reformers,  then,  we  shall  find  a 
sincere  effort  to  make  the  most  full  and  thorough  develop 
ment  of  the  doctrine  of  human  depravity  that  was  possible, 
and  from  motives  the  most  honorable  and  benevolent. 

Let  my  readers,  even  if  any  of  them  reject  the  opinions  of 
these  men  as  stated,  at  least  do  them  the  justice  to  endeavor, 
for  a  time,  to  look  at  the  system  from  their  point  of  vision. 
Let  them  regard  the  numerous  Christian  experiences  of 
such  men  as  I  have  described  —  men  of  the  highest  mental 
power,  and  of  clear  discrimination  —  as  at  least  intellectual 
phenomena  worthy  of  study,  and  consideration,  and  com 
prehension.  Nor  let  any  one  feel  an  illiberal  repulsion  from 
an  honest  effort  to  give  a  thorough  statement  of  the  reality 
and  depth  of  the  moral  diseases  of  the  human  heart. 

Moreover,  if  many  of  the  facts  as  stated  are,  in  reality, 
at  war  with  the  principles  of  honor  and  right,  as  I  concede 
them  to  be,  let  them  not  rashly  conclude  that  no  adjustment 
of  the  system  is  possible  by  which  the  facts  can  be  retained 
and  that  conflict  can  be  removed. 

But  let  us  hear  them  speak  for  themselves.  Calvin  thus 
defines  original  sin  :  It  is  "a  hereditary  depravity  and 


64  CONFLICT  OF  AGES. 

corruption  of  our  nature,  diffused  through  all  parts  of  the 
soul,  which,  in  the  first  place,  exposes  us  to  the  wrath  of 
God,  and  then  produces  in  us  those  works  which  the  Scrip 
ture  calls  the  works  of  the  flesh."  (Inst.  n.  1,  8.)  Of 
infants  he  says,  "They  bring  their  condemnation  with 
them  from  their  mother's  womb,  being  liable  to  punishment, 
not  for  the  sin  of  another,  but  for  their  own.  For,  although 
they  have  not  as  yet  produced  the  fruits  of  their  iniquity, 
yet  they  have  the  seed  enclosed  in  themselves ;  nay,  their 
whole  nature  is,  as  it  were,  a  seed  of  sin ;  therefore  it  can 
not  but  be  odious  and  abominable  to  God.  Whence  it  fol 
lows  that  it  is  properly  considered  sin  before  God,  because 
there  could  not  be  liability  to  punishment  without  sin." 
(Inst.  ir.  1,  8.)  He  also  states,  in  general,  that  the  cor 
ruption  of  nature  precedes  and  gives  rise  to  all  sinful  acts, 
and  is  itself  deserving  of  punishment.  "  Two  things 
deserve  distinct  notice :  first,  that  since  we  are  so  vitiated 
and  depraved  in  all  parts  of  our  nature,  we  are  justly  con 
victed  and  condemned  before  God,  to  whom  nothing  is 
accepted  but  justice,  innocence,  purity,  *  *  #  * 
Second,  that  this  depravity  never  ceases  to  produce  new 
fruits, — that  is.  those  works  of  the  flesh  before  alluded  to, 
—  just  as  a  kindled  furnace  incessantly  emits  flame  and 
sparks,  or  a  fountain  constantly  sends  forth  water."  (Inst. 
n.  1,  8.) 

He  also  contrasts  actual  sins,  and  indeed  corrupt  habits, 
with  a  depravity  of  nature,  and,  in  reference  to  Rom.  3 : 
10 — 18,  says,  "Men  are  not  such  as  are  here  described 
merely  through  sinful  habits,  but  also  by  a  depravity  of 
nature."  (Inst,  n.  3,  2.) 

Calvin  introduces  this  view  of  the  ruined  condition  of 
man  by  a  statement  of  his  motives.  He  regarded  it  as  the 
chief  wile  of  Satan,  "by  concealing  from  man  a  knowledge 


RADICAL  VIEW   OF  THE    RUIN    OF   MAN.  65 

of  his  disease,  to  render  it  incurable/'  In  opposition  to 
this,  he  aims  to  produce  a  knowledge  of  our  miserable  con 
dition,  that  shall  cause  earnest  desires  and  efforts  after  a 
true  and  thorough  remedy.  He  plainly  asserts,  in  doing 
this,  that,  anterior  to  all  actual  sin,  there  is  in  man  a  depraved 
nature,  by  which  he  is  exposed  to  the  just  anger  of  God, 
and  from  which  a  constant  stream  of  actual  sins  proceeds. 
Let  us,  for  the  present,  look  at  this  statement  merely  as  an 
effort  at  depth  and  thoroughness.  As  such,  we  cannot  deny 
that  it  is  radical  and  fundamental. 

From  the  following  quotations,  taken  from  public  form 
ularies,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  leading  churches  of  the 
Reformers  took  substantially  the  same  views,  and,  no  doubt, 
for  the  same  reasons. 

The  Synod  of  Dort  assert  that  all  men  become  depraved 
through  "the  propagation  of  a  vicious  nature;"  and  after 
this  thus  proceed,  "Therefore,  all  men  are  conceived  in 
sin,  and  born  the  children  of  wrath,  disqualified  for  all 
saving  good,  propense  to  evil,  dead  in  sins,  and  the  slaves 
of  sin  ;  and,  without  the  grace  of  the  regenerating  Holy 
Spirit,  they  neither  are  willing  nor  able  to  return  to  God, 
to  correct  their  depraved  nature^  or  to  dispose  themselves 
to  the  correction  of  it."  (Scott's  Synod  of  Dort.  Chaps, 
in.  &  iv.  $$  2,  3.) 

In  the  latter  confession  of  Helvetia  this  language  is  used: 
"We  take  sin  to  be  that  natural  corruption  of  man  de 
rived  or  spread  from  those  our  parents  unto  us  all ;  through 
which,  we  being  drowned  in  evil  concupiscences,  and  clean 
turned  away  from  God,  but  prone  to  all  evil,  full  of  all  wicked 
ness,  distrust,  contempt,  and  hatred  of  God,  can  do  no  good  of 
ourselves, —  no,  not  so  much  as  think  of  any."  (Harmony 
of  Confessions,  p.  163.) 

The    confession  of  Bohemia,  or  the  Waldenses,  says  of 
6* 


66  CONFLICT  OF  AGES. 

original  sin,  that  it  is  "naturally  engendered  in  us  and 
hereditary,  wherein  we  are  all  conceived  and  born  into  this 
world."  *  *  "  Let  the  force  of  this  hereditary  destruc 
tion  be  acknowledged  and  judged  of  by  the  guilt  and  fault 
involved,  by  our  proneness  and  declination  to  evil,  by  our 
evil  nature,  and  by  the  punishment  which  is  laid  upon 
it."  (Har.,  p.  169.)  Of  actual  sins,  they  say  they  are 
"  the  fruits  of  original  sin,  and  do  burst  out  within,  with 
out,  privily  and  openly,  by  the  powers  of  man ;  that  is, 
by  all  that  ever  man  is  able  to  do,  and  by  his  members, 
transgressing  all  those  things  which  God  commandeth  and 
forbiddeth,  and  also  running  into  blindness  and  errors, 
worthy  to  be  punished  with  all  kinds  of  damnation."  They 
declare  that  these  things  ought  to  be  earnestly  insisted  on, 
that  men  "  may  know  themselves,  that  they  are  conceived 
and  born  in  sin,  and  that  forthwith,  even  from  their  birth 
and  by  nature,  they  are  sinners,  full  of  lusts  and  evil  inclin 
ations." 

The  French  confession  says  of  man  :  "  His  nature  is 
become  altogether  defiled,  and,  being  blind  in  spirit  and  cor 
rupt  in  heart,  hath  utterly  lost  all  his  original  integrity." 
*  *  *  *  "We  believe  that  all  the  offspring  of  Adam 
are  infected  with  this  contagion,  which  we  call  original  sin  ; 
that  is,  a  stain  spreading  itself  by  propagation,  and  not  by 
imitation  only,  as  the  Pelagians  thought, —  all  whose  errors 
we  do  detest."  *  *  *  "We  believe  that  this  stain  is 
indeed  sin,  because  that  it  maketh  every  man  (not  so  much 
as  those  little  ones  excepted,  which  as  yet  lie  hid  in  their 
mother's  womb)  deserving  of  eternal  death  before  God. 
We  also  affirm  that  this  stain,  even  after  baptism,  is  in 
nature  sin.'1  *  *  *  (On  this  point,  the  Reformers 
contradict  Augustine.)  "  Moreover,  we  say  that  this  fro- 
wardness  of  nature  doth  always  bring  forth  some  fruits  of 


RADICAL   VIEW    OF   THE   RUIN    OF   MAN.  67 

malice  and  rebellion,  in  such  sort  that  even  they  which  are 
most  holy,  although  they  resist  it,  yet  are  they  defiled 
with  many  infirmities  and  offences,  so  long  as  they  live  in 
this  world."  (Harmony,  pp.  172-3.) 

The  Church  of  England,  in  her  thirty-nine  articles,  says  : 
"  Original  sin  is  the  fault  and  corruption  of  the  nature 
of  every  man  that  is  naturally  engendered  of  the  offspring 
of  Adam."  *  *  u  In  every  person  born  into  this  world, 
it  deserveth  God's  wrath  and  damnation."  (Har.,  p.  173.) 

In  the  confession  of  Belgia  it  is  said  :  "  We  believe  that 
through  the  disobedience  of  Adam  the  sin  that  is  called 
original  hath  been  spread  and  poured  into  all  mankind. 
Now,  original  sin  is  a  corruption  of  the  whole  nature,  and 
an  hereditary  evil,  wherewith  even  the  very  infants  in  their 
mother's  womb  are  polluted;  the  which,  also,  as  a  most 
noisome  root,  doth  branch  out  most  abundantly  all  kinds  of 
sin  in  man,  and  is  so  filthy  and  abominable  in  the  sight  of 
God  that  it  alone  is  sufficient  to  the  condemnation  of  all 
mankind."  (Har.,  p.  17*5.)  It  is  added,  "  Out  of  it,  as 
out  of  a  corrupt  fountain,  continual  floods  and  rivers  of 
iniquity  do  daily  flow." 

The  authors  of  the  confession  of  Augsburg  say  :  "  We 
mean,  by  original  sin,  that  which  the  holy  fathers  and  all 
of  sound  judgment  and  learning  in  the  church  do  so  call, 
namely,  that  guilt  whereby  all  that  come  into  the  world 
are,  through  Adam's  fall,  subject  to  God's  wrath,  and  eter 
nal  death,  and  that  very  corruption  of  man's  nature 
derived  from  Adam."  (In  this  definition  they  include 
what  is  called  original  sin  imputed,  as  well  as  original  sin 
inherent.)  They  define  this  corruption  of  nature  as 
involving  want  of  all  forms  of  original  righteousness  and 
concupiscence,  and  then  add,  "  Wherefore,  those  defects 
and  this  concupiscence  are  things  damnable,  and,  of  their 


68  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

own  nature,  worthy  of  death.  And  this  original  blot  is  sin 
indeed,  condemning  and  bringing  eternal  death  even  now, 
also,  upon  all  them  which  a,re  not  born  again  bj  baptism 
and  the  Holy  Ghost."  (Har.,  p.  176.) 

The  Moravian  confession  declares,  "  This  innate  disease 
and  original  sin,  is  truly  sin,  and  condemns  under  God's 
eternal  wrath  all  those  who  are  not  born  again  through 
water  and  the  Holy  Ghost."  (Har.,  p.  178.) 

The  Westminster  divines  teach  that  "  A  corrupted 
nature  was  conveyed  from  our  first  parents  to  all  their  pos 
terity.  From  this  original  corruption,  whereby  we  are 
utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and  made  opposite  to  all  good, 
and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil,  do  proceed  all  actual  trans 
gressions."  Concerning  this  corruption  of  nature,  they  say 
that  "  both  itself  and  all  the  motions  thereof  are  truly 
and  properly  sin."  To  this  they  add,  "  Every  sin,  both 
original  and  actual,  being  a  transgression  of  the  righteous 
law  of  God,  and  contrary  thereunto,  doth,  in  its  own  nature, 
bring  guilt  upon  the  sinner,  whereby  he  is  bound  over  to 
the  wrath  of  God  and  curse  of  the  law,  and  so  made  sub 
ject  to  death,  with  all  miseries,  spiritual,  temporal  and 
eternal."  (Har.,  pp.  179,  180.) 

It  is  not  my  purpose  at  this  time  to  enter  into  a  full  dis 
cussion  of  the  precise  import  of  all  this  language  of  the 
Reformers.  It  is,  however,  no  more  than  equitable  to  guard 
it  against  a  misunderstanding  to  which  it  is  liable.  It  has 
sometimes  been  interpreted  as  if  they  meant  to  teach  that 
the  substance  or  essence  of  man,  of  which  God  is  the 
creator,  is  itself  sinful  or  sin.  This  idea  was  in  fact 
advanced  by  Flaccus  Illyricus  in  his  controversy  with  Vic- 
torinus  Strigelius,  and  was  also  defended  by  Spangenberg. 
Moehler  also  regards  this  as  the  logical  result  of  the 
original  statements  of  Luther  and  his  followers  on  original 


RADICAL    VIEW    OF   THE    RUIN    OF   MAN.  69 

sin.  But  whether  it  is  so  or  not,  one  thing  is  undeniable, 
that  the  Reformers  always  disclaimed  it  as  a  part  of  their 
doctrine. 

A  labored  refutation  of  this  error  may  be  found  in 
Turretin  (Loc.  9,  Quaes.  11).  They  held,  he  assures  us, 
that  the  essence  or  substance  of  man,  so  far  as  created  by 
God,  was  in  itself  negatively  good ;  but,  nevertheless,  it 
was,  in  their  view,  devoid  of  original  righteousness,  and  dis 
ordered  by  original  sin  as  a  moral  disease,  perverting  the 
action  of  all  the  faculties.  As  the  substance  of  the  body  is 
not  itself  disease,  but  is  perverted  and  disordered  hi  its 
action  by  disease,  so  the  substance  of  the  body  and  soul  is 
not  sin,  but  is  perverted  and  disordered  in  its  action  by 
original  sin.  Moreover,  Turretin  defines  original  sin  as 
neither  an  act  nor  as  the  substance  of  the  soul,  but  as  an 
"  innate  vicious  habit."  It  is  so  called  because  it  is  a  state 
of  the  body  and  soul  predisposing  to  wrong  action,  just  as 
acquired  habits  predispose  to  various  modes  of  action.  Of 
this  he  says,  "It  is  compared  to  a  disease,  and  is  not 
merely  a  want  of  righteousness,  but  also  a  positive  corrup 
tion,  which  introduces  a  universal  derangement  of  nature 
and  all  its  faculties,  and  is  commonly  described  as  involving 
folly,  blindness  and  ignorance  in  the  intellect,  malice,  con 
tumacy  and  rebellion  in  the  will,  insubordination  or  want 
of  sensibility  in  the  affections,  so  that  man  becomes  not 
only  averse  from  good,  but  also  prone  to  all  evil.''" 

This  original  sin,  however,  though  not  consisting  in 
action,  but  preceding  all  knowledge  and  action,  they 
regarded  as  criminal,  and  punishable  to  such  a  degree  as  to 
be  a  proper  justification  of  eternal  punishments,  even  in  the 
case  of  unborn  infants,  as  is  distinctly  stated  in  the  French 
confession. 

Such  is  a  brief  view  of  the  depravity  of  man  as  an  indi- 


70  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

vidual,  which  has  been  believed  by  some  of  the  most  devoted 
and  experimental  Christians  whom  this  world  has  ever  seen. 
In  all  of  these  statements  it  is  apparent  that  they  have 
benevolently  aimed  at  the  great  end  before  mentioned, —  that 
is,  to  give  a  thorough  and  radical  view  of  the  fallen  and 
ruined  condition  of  man,  so  as  to  dissipate  all  the  delusions 
of  pride  and  self-confidence,  and  to  prepare  the  way  for  a 
cure  no  less  radical  and  thorough.  They  felt  that  the 
strength  and  obstinacy  of  their  own  inherent  depravity  was 
so  great,  and  its  resistance  of  all  means  of  thorough  cure 
so  long-continued,  that  it  must  have  its  roots  lower  than 
any  act  of  conscious  choice,  even  in  a  depraved  nature. 
So  also  the  power  of  depravity,  as  developed  in  the  history 
of  the  world  was  so  great,  both  in  resisting  and  rendering 
vain  divine  means  and  influences  adapted  to  reform  it,  and 
in  plunging  man  headlong  into  all  depths  of  sin  in  its  vilest 
forms,  that  they  could  not  rest  satisfied  with  a  mere  state 
ment  of  the  fact  that  men  do  voluntarily  sin  from  the 
commencement  of  moral  agency,  but  descended  into  the 
depths  of  a  nature  utterly  depraved,  anterior  to  all  individ 
ual,  personal  action,  for  a  cause  permanent  and  powerful 
enough  to  produce  such  results. 

To  illustrate  their  ideas  of  the  activity  and  of  the  power 
of  this  depraved  nature,  they  resort  to  the  most  striking 
material  analogies.  It  is  like  a  glowing  furnace,  constantly 
emitting  flames  and  sparks  ;  a  fountain  sending  out  polluted 
streams.  It  is  a  seed  or  seed-plot  of  sin.  Original  sin, 
by  which  it  is  thus  corrupted,  is  a  stain  or  infection  per 
vading  all  the  powers  of  the  soul.  It  is  a  noisome  root, 
out  of  which  do  spring  most  abundantly  all  kinds  of  sin. 
They  do  not  regard  it  as  merely  a  propensity  to  sin,  which 
is  not  of  itself  sinful,  but  assert  emphatically  that  it  is 
truly  and  properly  sin,  and  exposes  those  in  whom  it  is, 


RADICAL   VIEW    OF   THE    RUIN    OF   MAN.  71 

even  before  they  have  acted  at  all,  to  the  wrath  of  God  and 
eternal  death. 

In  coming  to  these  results,  they  turned  the  clear  gaze  of 
their  minds  away,  for  a  time,  from  other  considerations,  and 
regarded  intently  what  they  knew  of  human  depravity  by 
experience,  by  history,  and  by  the  word  of  God,  and  sought 
to  lay  a  foundation  deep  enough  to  sustain  a  doctrine  that 
should  come  up  to  the  fearful  realities  of  the  case.  Nor 
does  their  language  convey  an  idea  at  all  too  strong  of 
the  fearful  power  of  the  actual  developments  of  human 
depravity  in  the  history  of  this  world, —  even  as  stated  by 
Unitarians,  —  or  of  the  great  truth,  that  there  must  be  in 
man  some  adequate  cause,  before  action,  of  a  course  of 
action  so  universal,  so  powerful,  so  contrary  to  right,  to 
the  natural  laws  of  all  created  minds,  and  to  his  own 
highest  interests. 

But  the  question  whether  their  statements  are  not  liable 
to  serious  and  unanswerable  objections,  so  long  as  the 
moving  powers  of  Christianity  are  adjusted  as  they  are  at 
present,  will  more  properly  come  up  for  consideration  here 
after. 


CHAPTER    IX. 

SOCIAL  AND    ORGANIC    RELATIONS   OF   MAN. 

WE  have  seen  how  full  are  the  statements  of  Turretin, 
Dr.  Watts,  John  Wesley,  and  others,  against  the  idea  that 
a  new-created  being  should  be  so  made,  or  so  circumstanced, 
that  there  should  be  an  original  bias  or  preponderance 
towards  sin  and  ruin.  If  a  new-created  being  has  a  sinful 
or  morally  deteriorated  nature,  there  would  seem  to  be,  on 
these  principles,  the  greater  reason  for  not  exposing  him  to 
the  additional  influence  of  circumstances  tending  to  develop, 
strengthen  and  mature,  his  sinful  propensities.  We  need, 
then,  in  order  to  judge  of  the  conflict  between  principles, 
and  facts,  to  consider  the  circumstances  of  man,  as  well  as 
his  nature  and  original  propensities.  If  we  stop  short  of 
this,  we  shall  not  adequately  conceive  the  power  of  those 
causes,  various  and  united,  that  tend  to  the  ruin  of  man, 
as  conceived  by  those  who  entertain  the  views  under  con 
sideration.  We  see  only  the  power  of  his  personal  depravity 
as  an  individual,  and  his  weakness  to  resist  allurements  to 
sin.  We  ought,  then,  in  order  to  complete  these  views, 
next  to  consider  the  fact,  that,  being  thus  depraved,  man 
is  subjected  from  his  birth  to  the  power  of  other  sinful 
minds,  united  in  depraved  social  arrangements  and  organ 
izations,  called,  collectively,  the  world. 

In  the  heathen  world,  and  in  sinful  families  of  Christian 


SOCIAL   AND    ORGANIC   RELATIONS    OF   MAN.  73 

nations,  this  subjugation  to  the  power  of  evil  social  organi 
zations  begins  from  the  time  of  birth.  All  the  pollutions 
of  idolatry,  all  the  evil  passions,  actions  and  examples,  of 
sinful  parents,  surround  the  child  from  his  birth  upward, 
and  form  the  moral  atmosphere  in  which  he  lives. 

"  Superstitions  exist  that  are  the  growth  of  ages ;  and 
idolatries  that  seem  to  have  been  adapted,  with  consummate 
address,  to  meet  all  that  depraved  nature  craves  ;  and  these 
are  so  inwrought  with  the  fabric  of  society  as  to  make  an 
integral  part  of  every  one  of  its  institutions,  and  thus  every 
earthly  interest  seems  to  demand  that  things  should  remain 
as  they  are." 

On  this  subject  Dr.  Burnap  has  thus  spoken,  with  great 
truth  and  eloquence : 

"  Society,  from  the  same  causes,  is  as  capable  of  becom 
ing  vitiated  as  the  individual,  with  this  more  calamitous 
consequence,  that  it  reacts  upon  the  individual,  to  make  him 
more  depraved  than  he  could  have  become  had  he  stood 
alone.  Not  only  so,  but  the  vices  of  society  are  more 
enduring  than  those  of  the  individual.  The  vices  of  the 
individual  die  with  him,  but  the  vices  of  society  are  per 
petuated  from  generation  to  generation."  *  *  *  * 

"Under  an  arbitrary  or  a  tyrannical  government,  all 
motives  to  a  virtuous  life  are  greatly  weakened.  Virtue 
has  no  reward,  and  vice  is  safe  so  long  as  it  has  the  means 
to  bribe  the  hand  of  justice. 

"It  is  in  vain  to  expect  any  high  degree  of  moral  attain 
ment  under  a  bad  government.  Take,  as  an  example,  the 
Ottoman  empire.  It  occupies  some  of  the  fairest  portions 
of  the  globe.  But  the  very  manner  in  which  the  govern 
ment  is  administered  corrupts  and  ruins  everything.  The 
whole  organization  of  the  state  is  nothing  more  nor  less 
than  a  vast  machine  for  extortion  and  robbery.  The  suc- 
7 


74  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

cessive  governors  of  the  different  provinces  are  generally 
court  favorites,  or  mere  adventurers,  whose  only  hope  of 
wealth  and  distinction  is  the  favor  of  their  sovereign,  result 
ing  in  the  opportunity  of  plundering,  for  a  few  years,  one  of 
the  provinces  of  the  empire.  With  this  understanding,  the 
sycophant  takes  possession  of  his  government,  and  under  the 
pretence  of  taxation,  which  he  levies  at  his  own  discretion, 
the  best  citizens  are  sure  to  suffer  the  worst  spoliation.  The 
very  appearance  of  thrift  and  wealth  is  dangerous,  and  all 
motive  to  industry  and  economy,  to  good  morals  and  good 
management,  is  taken  away.  Those  who  are  plundered  seek 
first  a  refuge  in  hypocrisy  and  deception ;  or,  having  lost 
all,  become  the  robbers  and  oppressors  of  those  who  are 
more  defenceless  than  themselves. 

"  Can  it  be  said  that  a  human  being,  who  is  born  and 
passes  through  life  under  such  a  government  and  in  such  a 
state  of  society,  has  a  fair  opportunity  for  right  develop 
ment  '?  No  more  than  a  grain  of  corn  thrown  into  a  heap 
of  stones  or  a  thicket  of  brambles." 

The  power  of  corrupt  social  organizations  is  not  at  all 
exaggerated  in  this  statement ;  and  the  same  remarks  may 
be  extended  to  corrupt  religious,  educational  and  commercial 
organizations,  which  have  in  all  ages  exerted  inconceivable 
power. 

So,  too,  as  far  as  the  larger  social  circles,  of  which  he 
is  a  part,  in  Christian  nations,  are  worldly,  ambitious, 
luxurious  or  sensual,  he  is  led,  by  social  power  and  rewards, 
and  by  the  fear  of  shame,  to  follow  the  same  course  to  which 
his  depraved  heart  already  impels  him.  Hence  the  fact  that 
large  cities  are  slaughter-houses  of  countless  throngs  of 
young  men, —  in  theatres,  at  the  gaming-table,  the  tavern, 
or  the  place  of  impure  resort.  Moreover,  so  far  as  business 
and  politics  are  worldly  and  corrupt,  so  far  they  give  a  new 


SOCIAL   AND    ORGANIC   RELATIONS   OF   MAN.  75 

impulse  and  greater  development  to  his  natural  depravity. 
In  some  communities,  the  tendencies  are  all  to  ruin.  In 
others,  Christian  families  and  churches  to  a  certain  degree 
counteract  them;  but  still,  even  to  this  day,  the  predomi 
nant  power  of  the  organizations  of  this  world  has  been  to 
evil.  They  have  tended  to  develop,  mature,  and  confirm 
the  native  depravity  which  already  exists  in  each  man  as  an 
individual ;  and  this  alike  in  the  higher  circles  of  the 
wealthy,  fashionable  and  powerful,  and  in  the  middle  and 
lower  walks  of  life.  What  Christian  parent  can  send  his 
child  to  the  schools  and  colleges  of  our  land,  or  into  the 
stores  of  our  merchants,  or  shops  of  our  artisans,  or  even 
to  the  farms  of  our  agriculturalists,  without  feeling  that  evil 
social  influences,  of  vast  power,  will  beset  him  on  every 
side? 


CHAPTER    X. 

RELATIONS     OF     MAN     TO      INVISIBLE     ENEMIES. 

WE  have  seen  the  social  and  organic  relations  of  man. 
But  even  this,  in  the  judgment  of  those  who  hold  these 
views,  does  not  complete  the  dark  picture.  They  regard 
every  man  who  is  born  under  such  social  organizations  as 
also  exposed  to  the  malice  and  wiles  of  powerful  evil  spirits, 
acting  through  them.  This  is  not,  indeed,  a  doctrine  of 
nature ;  but,  in  their  judgment,  what  nature  does  not  teach 
is  clearly  revealed  in  the  word  of  God.  This  world,  we  are 
there  informed,  is  the  abode  and  theatre  of  action  for  hosts 
of  fallen  spirits,  who,  whilst  the  generations  of  men  die,  live 
and  plan,  and  acquire  malignant  wisdom,  from  age  to  age. 
They  understand  the  depravity  of  man,  and  his  moral  weak 
ness  ;  and  long  experience  has  given  them  terrific  skill  in 
the  science  of  temptation.  Such  systems  of  error  as  the 
depraved  hearts  of  men  are  ready  to  adopt,  they  skilfully 
invent,  promulgate  and  defend.  Such  organizations  as  are 
in  spirit  most  opposed  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  they  form, 
animate  and  sustain.  Thus,  not  only  by  individual  and 
transient  suggestions,  but  through  organized,  established, 
and  permanent  systems  of  evil,  do  they  "  work  in  the  chil 
dren  of  disobedience,"  and  "  lead  them  captive  at  their 
will."  The  fearful  power  exerted  by  these  dark  rulers  of 
this  world  we  are  in  no  danger  of  over-estimating.  None 
had  a  deeper  conviction  of  it  than  our  Saviour.  He  was 


RELATIONS  OF  MAN  TO   INVISIBLE   ENEMIES.          77 

revealed  and  became  incarnate  to  destroy  the  power  of  the 
devil  and  his  hosts.  When  Paul  was  sent  to  the  heathen 
world,  his  commission  was,  to  turn  them  from  the  power  of 
Satan  to  God.  He  regarded  his  chief  conflict  to  be  not  so 
much  with  depraved  man  as  with  these  dark  hosts.  Nor 
does  prophecy  give  any  hope  of  the  conversion  of  the  world 
till  Satan  is  bound  and  cast  into  the  abyss.  Such  is  the 
fearful  power  of  those  spirits,  in  the  midst  of  whose  systems 
men,  themselves  so  deeply  depraved,  are  born  and  live. 
Not  only,  then,  are  men  surrounded  by  corrupt  human  sys 
tems,  but  by  powerful  spirits  of  evil,  skilled  to  animate  and 
employ  these  systems  for  their  ruin  with  the  highest  degree 
of  energy. 

Combine  all  of  these  statements,  and  we  shall  have  a 
comprehensive  and  fearful  view  of  the  ruined  state  of  man. 
Yet,  fearful  as  it  is,  it  is  a  view  that  has  been,  and,  in  its 
fundamental  facts,  still  is,  belie  ved>  by  some  of  the  most 
devoted  Christians  ever  seen  on  earth.  They  have  been  led 
to  it  by  their  own  experience,  by  observation  of  history,  and 
by  the  word  of  God.  So  the  Reformers,  so  the  Puritans 
believed,  and  so  the  leading  orthodox  bodies  of  the  present 
day  substantially  believe.  Eminently  devoted  men,  like 
Edwards,  have  commonly  the  deepest  and  most  heartfelt 
conviction  of  these  things.  They  regard  them  as  obviously 
the  views  of  the  inspired  writers.  Accordingly,  it  is  be 
cause  God  can  and  does  save  men,  against  such  mighty 
causes  of  ruin,  that,  in  the  words  of  the  apostle  Paul,  they 
extol  the  magnitude  of  his  power.  It  is  "  according  to  the 
working  of  his  mighty  power  which  he  wrought  in  Christ 
when  he  raised  him  from  the  dead  and  placed  him  at  his 
own  right  hand  in  the  heavenly  places."  (Eph.  1 :  19, 
20.)  Those  thus  saved  he  describes  as  once  "  dead  in  tres 
passes  and  sins,  walking  according  to  the  course  of  this 


78  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

world,  according  to  the  prince  of  the  power  of  the  air,  the 
spirit  that  now  worketh  in  the  children  of  disobedience,  and 
by  nature  the  children  of  wrath,  even  as  others."  (Eph. 
2:  1—3.) 

Such,  then,  is  a  development  of  the  remaining  great  mov 
ing  power  of  Christianity,  as  it  has  been  and  still  is  set 
forth  by  men  deeply  engaged  in  the  great  work  of  the  moral 
renovation  of  man.  At  another  time  we  shall  consider  the 
question,  to  what  extent,  and  on  what  grounds,  it  is  justly 
open  to  assault,  as  opposed  to  the  principles  of  honor  and 
right.  But  we  will  now  look  at  it  as  a  statement  aiming  at 
a  thorough  view  of  human  depravity,  and  of  the  hostile 
forces  which  are  arrayed  against  the  renovation  and  sal 
vation  of  man,  and  which  are  to  be  assailed  and  reversed  by 
the  power  of  God.  It  must  be  confessed  that,  on  such  a 
general  view,  it  accords  with  the  fearful  energy  with  which 
depravity  has  been,  in  fact,  developed  in  this  world.  It  also 
presents  a  deep  foundation  for  a  system  of  redemption, —  a 
system  vast  and  sublime,  and  interlocking  with  the  whole 
system  of  the  moral  universe.  In  its  penetrating  and  revo 
lutionary  power  it  has  proved  itself  deep  and  thorough.  It 
presents  to  every  individual  a  great  work  to  be  done,  a  great 
salvation  to  be  secured.  It  provides  powerful  motives.  It 
imparts  energy.  It  creates  a  deep  experience.  It  gives  a 
profound  and  thorough  character  to  all  schemes  of  social 
reform.  Moreover,  it  has  ever  been  the  great  centre  of 
evangelical  enterprise  and  power. 


CHAPTER    XI, 

THE     CONFLICT    A     REALITY. 

SUCH,  then,  is  a  statement  of  the  principles  of  equity  and 
honor,  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  the  most  radical  view  of  the 
fallen  and  ruined  condition  of  man,  on  the  other.  Each 
statement,  it  has  been  seen,  is  sustained  by  the  testimony  of 
men  eminent  for  piety,  and  of  the  highest  reputation  as  the 
defenders  of  orthodoxy.  With  regard  to  the  fearful  depth 
and  power  of  human  depravity,  as  actually  developed,  even 
eminent  Unitarian  divines  give  most  explicit  testimony. 
That  only  which  is  needed  to  complete  the  view  is  an  ac 
count  of  the  antecedent  causes  of  such  developments.  This, 
as  it  has  been  just  given,  completes  the  common  orthodox 
view  of  the  two  great  moving  powers  of  the  Christian  system. 
Can  anything  be  more  certain  than  that  Christianity  can 
never,  as  a  system,  operate  harmoniously  and  with  full 
power,  except  on  two  conditions, —  first,  that  it  shall,  in 
theory,  include  what  really  belongs  to  them  both,  and,  sec 
ondly,  that  it  shall  give  ample  room  for  the  full  and  consist 
ent  development  of  each  1  For  the  radical  elements  of  both 
belong  to  the  system,  and  are  alike  essential  to  its  perfect 
development  and  most  salutary  influence. 

In  contemplating  them  as  they  have  been  set  forth,  two 
things  strike  the  mind  as  worthy  of  notice :  one,  that  each, 
in  its  radical  elements,  is  sustained  by  its  own  independent 
and  indestructible  evidence ;  the  other,  that,  as  Christianity  r? 


80  CONFLICT    OF   AUKs. 

is  at  present  adjusted,  there  is  no  possibility  of  a  full  and 
harmonious  development  of  them  both,  but.  on  the  other 
hand,  one  constantly  conflicts  with  and  tends  to  repress,  and 
even  to  destroy,  the  other. 

The  evidence  which  sustains  the  principles  of  honor  and 
right,  as  we  have  seen,  originates  from  the  fact  that  God 
has  so  made  the  mind  that  their  truth  is  intuitively  recog 
nized  and  affirmed,  and  is,  therefore,  a  divine  revelation ;  and 
also  from  the  distinct  recognition  of  these  principles  in 
Christian  experience  and  in  the  word  of  God. 

The  truth  of  the  fundamental  facts  concerning  the  ruined 
state  of  man  is  evinced  by  the  combined  testimony  of  the 
word  of  God,  of  history,  of  observation,  and  of  Christian 
consciousness. 

But,  that  in  some  way  these  moving  powers  have  been  so 
misadjusted  as  to  conflict  with  each  other,  is  obvious  from 
simply  placing  them,  as  above  developed,  side  by  side.  To 
say  the  very  least,  the  preceding  statements  as  to  the  ruin 
of  man  do  appear  directly  to  conflict  with  the  principles  of 
honor  and  right  which  have  been  set  forth,  and  tend  directly 
to  subvert  and  destroy  them.  He  who  holds  that  God,  in 
the  manner  already  set  forth,  gives  existence  to  men  with 
natures  radically  corrupt  and  depraved,  anterior  to  any 
knowledge,  desire  or  choice,  of  their  own,  with  full  power  to 
do  evil  and  none  to  do  good,  and  then  places  them  under  the 
all-pervading  influence  of  corrupt  and  corrupting  social  sys 
tems, —  and,  in  addition  to  all  this,  subjects  them  to  the  tre 
mendous  and  delusive  power  of  malignant  spirits,  fearfully 
skilled  in  the  work  of  developing,  maturing  and  confirming 
original  depravity, — cannot,  at  least,  with  any  apparent  con 
sistency,  say  that  the  Creator  has  fulfilled  towards  them  the 
demands  of  honor  and  of  right,  as  they  have  been  exhibited. 
How  can  he  say  that  he  has  regarded  their  well-being  as  he 


THE   CONFLICT  A    REALITY.  81 

ought,  or  that  he  has  observed  towards  them  the  principles 
of  justice  1  Has  he  not  held  them  responsible  for  what 
exists  in  them  through  his  own  agency,  and  anterior  to 
any  desire,  choice  or  action,  of  their  own  ?  Has  he  not  con 
ferred  on  them  such  original  constitutions  as  most  unfa 
vorably  affect  their  prospects  for  eternity,  and  render  their 
right  conduct  and  eternal  life  in  the  highest  degree  improb 
able  ?  Has  he  not  placed  them  in  circumstances  which  are 
not  reasonably  and  benevolently  favorable  to  their  eternal 
life? 

He,  then,  who  holds  that  God  is  the  author  of  the  facts 
alleged,  finds  himself  constantly  urged,  by  the  demands  of 
logical  consistency,  to  evade,  or  else  to  call  in  question  and 
deny,  the  real  and  self-evident  principles  of  honor  and  right. 
On  the  other  hand,  he  who  holds  to  the  genuine  principles 
of  honor  and  right  will  be  no  less  powerfully  urged  to  deny 
the  facts  alleged  as  to  the  ruined  state  of  man,  and  to  put 
forth  all  his  energies  to  subvert  and  destroy  them. 

Nay,  more ;  it  would  seem  as  if  the  preceding  statement 
of  the  principles  of  honor  and  right  had  been  specially  de 
signed  to  effect  this  end.  It  seems  to  oppose  the  statement 
of  facts,  as  to  the  ruined  state  of  man,  deliberately,  univer 
sally,  radically,  and  step  by  step. 

Moreover,  undeniable  facts  prove  the  reality  of  the  alleged 
collision.  Each  of  these  moving  powers  of  the  system  thus 
put  into  opposition  to  each  other  has,  in  fact,  created  a  party 
to  represent  and  defend  it,  and  to  oppose  and  subvert  the 
other. 

It  is,  also,  a  fact  worthy  of  distinct  notice,  that  when,  as 
has  often  been  the  case,  individuals  have  tried  to  retain 
both  powers  in  their  system  in  full  action,  they  have  almost 
invariably  run  into  self-contradiction ;  so  much  so,  that  few. 


82  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

if  any  writers  of  this  class  can  be  found  who  are  exempt 
from  the  charge. 

Finally ;  all  attempts  to  harmonize  these  opposing  powers 
have  hitherto  failed,  and,  as  the  system  is  at  present  ad 
justed,  ever  must  fail.  For,  since  each  has  in  itself  radical 
truth,  which  is  sustained  by  its  own  evidence,  it  has  a  vital 
power  which  cannot  be  destroyed,  nor  can  its  defenders  be 
thoroughly  defeated;  and,  therefore,  unless  they  can  be 
harmoniously  adjusted,  division  and  conflict  will  be  per 
petual. 

It  is  not  possible,  however,  to  convey  a  full  idea  of  this 
momentous  truth  by  mere  general  statements.  We  will, 
therefore,  more  in  detail,  exhibit  principles  and  facts,  to 
illustrate  the  reality  of  this  conflict,  and  to  show  that,  on 
existing  grounds,  it  is  interminable. 


BOOK  II. 

THE   CONFLICT  IN  EXPERIENCE. 


CHAPTER    I. 

LAWS     OF    THOUGHT     AND     EMOTION     UNDER     THIS 

SYSTEM. 

LET  us,  then,  proceed  more  fully  to  set  forth  what  has 
been  the  actual  operation  of  these  powers,  so  misadjusted 
and  in  conflict,  on  the  human  mind.  In  doing  this,  I  shall 
not,  at  present,  follow  the  order  of  history.  I  shall,  rather, 
look  at  the  relations  of  the  system  to  the  human  mind,  its 
tendencies  to  produce  deep  divisions  of  opinions  and  feelings, 
and  the  different  kinds  of  experience  to  which  it  naturally 
gives  rise. 

It  will  be  seen  at  once  that  the  opposing  doctrinal  posi 
tions  which  have  been  advanced  are  not  points  of  mere  spec 
ulation,  but  of  deep  practical,  personal  interest.  Christianity 
does  not  meet  man  as  a  mere  philosophical  theory,  nor  as  a 
speculation  of  some  Socrates,  Plato,  Aristotle,  or  any  other 
uninspired  sage;  but  as  an  inspired  message  from  God, 
invested  with  supreme  authority,  and  pointing  man  to  a 
final  judgment,  and  to  eternal  destinies,  to  be  decided  in 
accordance  with  its  principles  and  requisitions. 


84  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

Nor  does  it  relate,  primarily,  to  theory,  but  to  action. 
Its  great  end  is  to  produce  a  moral  change  in  man  —  in 
every  man.  It  charges  guilt  on  all.  It  calls  at  once  for 
repentance,  for  a  believing  application  for  pardon  through 
Christ,  and  for  a  holy  life.  Nor  can  the  great  points  in 
question  be  avoided.  Since  they  relate  to  conviction  of  sin, 
repentance,  faith,  and  a  holy  life,  they  are,  of  course, 
involved  in  all  preaching,  in  all  prayer,  and  in  all  religious 
efforts. 

Nor  are  the  interests  involved  in  these  conflicting  powers 
of  secondary  consequence,  and  therefore  adapted  to  excite 
but  little  feeling.  They  involve  all  that  man  holds  dear  for 
two  worlds,  all  that  he  can  conceive  of  personal  good  or  evil. 
Nay,  more ;  they  involve  not  merely  individual  well-being, 
but,  what  is  infinitely  more  momentous,  the  character  of  God, 
and  the  eternal  prospects  of  the  universe  under  his  omnipo 
tent  and  all-pervading  sway. 

We  need  not  wonder,  then,  that  the  developments  of  the 
human  mind,  under  a  system  so  misadjusted,  and  involving 
such  interests,  have  been  characterized  by  a  fearful  earnest 
ness,  and  deep  and  intense  emotion. 

When  such  interests  and  emotions  impel  men,  under  such 
a  system,  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  division,  of  the  deep 
est  and  most  radical  kind,  can  be  averted.  It  never  has 
been  possible.  It  never  will  be.  Each  of  the  conflicting 
views  is  fundamentally  true,  and  is  sustained  by  powerful 
evidence.  Each  is  intensely  affecting  to  the  feelings ;  and, 
such  is  the  human  mind,  that  it  is  to  be  expected  that  some 
will  come  entirely  under  the  influence  of  one  view,  and 
others  of  the  other.  Moreover,  if  either  gains  the  ascend 
ency,  it  is  large  enough,  and  true  and  important  enough,  sc 
to  fill  the  field  of  vision,  and  to  produce  such  an  unwavering 
conviction  of  its  truth,  such  an  overpowering  sense  of  its 


LAWS   OF   THOUGHT.  85 

supreme  importance,  that  it  shall  compel  all  that  seems  to 
be  at  war  with  it  to  give  way,  and  summon  the  powers  of 
logic,  criticism  and  exposition,  to  effect  its  purpose.  More 
over,  if  either  of  these  views  thus  takes  possession  of  the 
mind,  and  fills  and  overwhelms  it  with  emotion,  it,  of  course, 
creates  and  gives  character  to  a  peculiar  religious  expe 
rience. 

There  are  those,  I  know,  who  look  with  contempt  upon 
such  theological  conflicts  of  the  present  and  of  past  ages,  and 
the  next  to  superhuman  efforts  which  men  have  put  forth  in 
the  defence  of  their  views.  But  conflicts  on  such  themes 
as  these  are  worthy  of  any  other  emotion  than  contempt. 
Nothing  can  be  more  sublime  and  affecting  than  this  great 
controversy  of  ages  truly  viewed,  as  from  some  mountain- 
top  of  history  we  survey  the  reality  and  earnestness  of  the 
conflict,  its  extent  and  duration,  the  depth  of  emotion  awak 
ened  by  it,  its  fertility  in  varied  intellectual  results,  and  the 
relations  of  its  solution  to  the  future  destinies  of  the  world. 

Let  us,  then,  from  such  an  eminence,  endeavor  to  survey 
and  develop  some  of  the  experiences  which  have  sprung 
from  the  conflicting  operations  of  these  ill-adjusted  truths. 
8 


CHAPTER   II. 

EXPERIENCES    CHARACTERIZED. 

IT  is  not  my  present  purpose  minutely  to  consider  all  of 
the  experiences  to  which  the  system  of  Christianity,  as  mis- 
adjusted,  has  given  rise.  I  propose  rather  to  exhibit  in 
their  bold  outlines  some  of  the  more  important  of  them, 
reserving  others  for  future  consideration. 

In  setting  forth  any  experience,  my  purpose  is,  first,  to 
present  those  true  views  in  which  are  found  the  elements  of 
its  permanent  vitality  and  power.  After  this,  I  shall  then 
subjoin  to  each  experience  the  reaction  which  has  ever 
arisen  against  it  from  the  truths  which  it  has  excluded,  and 
with  which  it  is  in  conflict.  Of  these  experiences  I  shall 
now  consider  but  six ;  others  may  be  adverted  to  hereafter. 

1.  First  of  all  will  be  noticed  that  in  which  a  Christian 
experience,  and  a  deep  consciousness  of  the  ruin  of  man, 
become  so  intense  and  powerful  as  to  give  the  entire  ascend 
ency  to  the  belief  of  the  facts  assumed  in  the  most  radical 
theory  which  has  been  stated  of  human  depravity,  and  to 
suspend  the  power  of  the  principles  of  honor  and  right  to 
produce  a  disbelief,  or   even  an  essential  modification,  of 
them.     Such  full  faith  has,  indeed,  sometimes  led  even  to  a 
rejection  of  those  principles,  at  least  in  their  relations  to 
God ;  or,  if  not,  to  an  evasion  of  them,  or  to  a  resort  to  the 
plea  of  mystery. 

2.  Next  will  be  considered   tbat  feeling   sense   of  the 


EXPERIENCES    CHARACTERIZED.  87 

sacredness  and  momentous  importance  of  the  principles  of 
honor  and  right  in  their  relations  to  God,  which  gives  the 
entire  ascendency  to  those  principles,  and  leads  to  an  entire 
denial  and  rejection  of  the  facts  alleged,  in  setting  forth 
in  a  radical  manner  the  utter  ruin  of  man. 

3.  I  notice  next  an  experience  in  which  the  fundamental 
facts  and  the  moral  principles  are  both  retained  without 
modification ;  but  the  mind  seeks  relief  from  their  conflict 
in  a  system  of  ultimate  universal  salvation.      Of  this  we 
have  a  deeply  interesting  illustration  in  the  experience  of 
the  celebrated  John  Foster. 

4.  Next  to  this  will  pass  in  review  that  class  of  ex 
periences  in  which  both  the  principles  of  honor  and  right 
and  the  essential  facts  are  professedly  retained ;    but  still 
the  principles  are  allowed  to   modify  the  facts,  with  the 
intention  of  removing  all  real  conflict  between  them. 

5.  We  shall  then  advert  to  an  experience  in  which  the 
principles  and  the  most  radical  facts  in  question  are  both 
retained,  without  any  perceived  and  satisfactory  mode  of 
modification  or  adjustment.     In  this  case,  the  mind  comes, 
for  a  time,  under  the  oppressive  and  overwhelming  con 
sciousness  of  being  apparently  under  an  universal  system 
which  is  incapable  of  defence,  and  under  a  God  whom  the 
principles  of  honor  and  of  right  forbid  us  to  love  and  to 
worship. 

6.  Lastly,  an  experience  will  be  noticed  in  which,  as  in 
the  last,  the  principles  and  the  most  radical  facts  in  question 
are  both  retained,  but  are  harmonized  by  a  new  adjustment 
of  the  system,  such  that  the  painful  conflict  between  fun 
damental  truths  is  at  an  end,  and  God  is  seen  in  his  full- 
orbed  glory  and  loveliness,  and  is  worshipped  with  undivided 
affection  and  reverence. 

I  shall  consider  in  the  case  of  only  the  first  four  of  these 


88  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

experiences  the  reaction  to  which  they  give  rise;  for  the 
fifth  experience  is  too  terrible  ever  to  be  embodied  in  formal 
statements,  or  to  become  so  general  and  permanent  as  to  call 
for  a  re  Action ;  and  the  sixth,  if  it  is  ever  truly  reached,  is 
adapted  to  harmonize  all  the  facts  of  the  case  with  the 
principles  of  honor  and  right,  and  thus  to  render  needless  a 
re'iction. 

In  this  review  of  experiences,  it  is  my  earnest  desire  and 
aim,  not  merely  to  be  impartial,  but  ever  to  regard  with 
sympathy,  and  sincerely  to  honor,  every  response  of  the 
human  soul  to  any  part  of  the  great  system  of  truth,  with 
whatever  other  errors  it  may  have  been  connected.  I  am 
no  less  desirous  to  find  a  similar  spirit  in  all  of  my  readers. 
I  do  most  earnestly  deprecate  the  awakening  in  any  mind 
of  a  spirit  of  partisan  controversy.  I  rather  desire,  as  I 
have  already  said,  to  do  all  in  my  power  to  create,  on  all 
sides,  a  feeling  of  sympathy  and  mutual  interest,  by  point 
ing  out  those  benevolent  and  honorable  impulses,  and  that 
regard  to  truth, —  mixed  though  it  should  be  with  other 
motives,  by  which  the  various  parties  have  been  actuated, — 
and  to  produce  a  candid  and  united  effort  to  eliminate  error 
and  to  develop  the  whole  truth. 


CHAPTER    III. 

THE     FIRST     EXPERIENCE,     OR     THE     PHILOSOPHY 
OF    OLD-SCHOOL    THEOLOGY. 

THE  radical  element  of  the  first  experience  is  the  doctrine 
of  real,  responsible,  punishable  depravity  in  man,  before  vol 
untary  action.  Whether  this  depravity  be  called  boldly  a 
depraved  or  a  corrupt  nature,  or,  more  mildly,  innate  or  inhe 
rent  depravity,  it  comes,  at  last,  to  the  same  thing.  It  is, 
as  I  have  said,  resorted  to  by  Christian  men  to  account  for 
the  fearful  developments  of  actual  depravity,  which  are  so 
plain  that  even  eminent  Unitarian  divines  concede  them,  and 
state  them  with  impressive  eloquence  and  power.  The  mere 
power  of  choice  and  external  temptation  seem  insufficient  to 
explain  a  course  of  action  so  contrary  to  reason,  so  obstinate, 
so  general,  so  ruinous.  They,  therefore,  resort  to  the  idea 
of  a  depraved  and  sinful  nature  anterior  to  choice  and 
action.  Those  who  hold  this  view  also  hold,  so  far  as  I 
know,  without  exception,  the  connected  views  of  man's  ex 
posure  to  the  full  influence  of  corrupt  social  and  organic 
relations,  and  of  invisible  malignant  spirits  of  great  power. 

At  first  sight,  it  would  be  supposed  that  no  one  could  be 
induced  to  believe  that  the  great  Creator  could  or  would 
give  to  a  new-created  being  such  a  nature,  rendering  it 
powerless  to  do  good,  and  then  place  it  in  such  circum 
stances.  Yet  many  most  excellent  men  have  so  believed 
and  taught. 

By  what  power,  then,  have  they  been  brought  to  such 
8* 


90  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

conclusions?  I  answer,  by  the  power  of  Christian  ex 
perience.  Nor  is  this  an  irrational  ground  of  belief. 

If  a  man  is  conscious  that  he  has  the  plague,  or  a  fever, 
or  a  consumption,  he  knows  perfectly  that  he  is  not  well. 
If  by  any  medicine  he  is  restored  to  perfect  health,  he 
knows  what  health  is,  and  what  is  the  normal  and  proper 
state  of  the  body.  In  this  case,  no  argument  from  divine 
benevolence,  or  the  laws  of  honor  and  of  right,  against  the 
existence  of  a  diseased  constitution,  will  ever  convince  him 
that  he  was  not  in  fact  sick  with  a  malignant  disease,  affect 
ing  his  whole  constitution. 

So  there  is  a  life  of  the  mind.  It  involves  an  original 
and  designed  correlation  to  God,  and  such  a  state  of  the 
affections,  passions,  emotions,  intellect  and  will,  that  com 
munion  with  God  shall  be  natural,  habitual,  and  the  life  of 
the  soul.  He  who  has  been  so  far  healed  by  divine  grace 
as  to  reach  this  state  has  a  true  idea  of  the  normal  and 
healthy  state  of  the  soul ;  and,  if  he  finds  that  there  is  that 
in  the  state  of  his  moral  constitution  and  emotions  which 
seems  to  lie  beneath  his  will  and  undermine  its  energy  to 
follow  the  convictions  of  reason  and  conscience,  and  that  by 
divine  grace  this  is  changed,  and  an  energy,  not  only  to 
will,  but  to  do  good,  is  supplied, —  is  it  to  be  wondered  at 
that,  in  some  way,  he  should  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
there  is  in  his  nature,  or  moral  constitution,  depravity  or 
pollution  anterior  to  the  action  of  the  will  ?  Is  it  strange 
that  he  should  deeply  feel  and  express  his  moral  impotence 
to  do  good,  arising  from  such  a  cause,  and,  in  his  struggles 
against  it,  long  for  deliverance  in  the  words  of  Paul,  "  0, 
wretched  man  that  I  am !  who  shall  deliver  me  from  the 
body  of  this  death  ?  " 

Let  us  look  into  the  experience  of  Edwards  in  one  par 
ticular, —  that  is,  as  to  a  sinful  propensity  to  self-admiration, 


THE   FIRST   EXPERIENCE.  91 

which  is  always  connected  with  a  sinful  desire  of  the  praise 
and  admiration  of  others,  and  leads  to  quick  and  bitter  re 
sentment  if  reputation  is  assailed.  He  who  has  been  taught 
by  God  to  know  what  spiritual  chastity  is  will  see  in  this 
action  of  the  human  mind,  so  natural,  so  powerful,  so  fear 
fully  common,  a  kind  of  moral  pollution,  the  loathsomeness 
of  which  he  lacks  words  to  express.  He  will  long  to  exter 
minate  this  malignant  and  polluting  disease  of  the  soul,  and 
to  become  in  the  sight  of  God  spiritually  chaste,  humble, 
satisfied  with  the  judgment  and  favor  of  God,  and  regard 
ing  it  as  a  very  small  matter  to  be  judged  or  censured  by 
human  judgments,  and  censure  as  no  reason  for  ceasing  to 
exercise  towards  all  the  utmost  good  will  and  Christian 
love  and  forgiveness.  In  this  respect,  Edwards,  when  tried 
by  the  most  unreasonable  and  unkind  rejection  and  dishonor 
from  his  own  church  and  people,  manifested  one  of  the 
most  beautiful  examples  on  record  of  a  mild,  forgiving, 
Christ-like  spirit.  Why  was  it?  If  we  look  into  his  expe 
rience,  we  shall  see  that  God  had  prepared  him  for  it,  by 
eradicating  that  bitter  root  of  malignity,  of  which  I  have 
spoken.  His  experience  I  give  in  his  own  words : 

•'  I  have  a  much  greater  sense  of  my  universal,  exceed 
ing  dependence  on  God's  grace  and  strength  than  I  used 
formerly  to  have,  and  have  experienced  more  of  an  abhor 
rence  of  my  own  righteousness.  The  very  thought  of  any 
joy  arising  in  me,  on  any  consideration  of  my  own  amiable- 
ness,  performances  or  experiences,  or  any  goodness  of  heart 
or  life,  is  nauseous  and  detestable  to  me." 

This  is  exactly  the  experience  of  one  to  whom  God  has 
shown,  in  its  true  light,  the  deep  and  unutterable  pollution 
of  that  spiritual  unchastity  which  is  involved  in  that  deep- 
rooted  pride,  which,  like  a  cancer,  seems  to  have  struck  its 
roots  deeply  into  the  human  soul,  and  the  extermination  of 


92  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

which  calls  for  so  much  providential  discipline,  and  so  many 
arid  so  painful  struggles,  and  which  made  the  thorn  in  the 
flesh  necessary  to  preserve  the  humility  even  of  the  apostle 
Paul. 

Yet  Edwards  did  not  find  this  root  of  evil  entirely  exter 
minated  in  his  soul :  and  so  much  had  his  moral  sensibilities 
been  quickened  to  see  and  feel  its  pollutions,  that  any  tend 
encies  to  what  he  thus  abhorred  filled  him  with  deep 
distress ;  therefore  he  proceeds  to  say : 

"  And  yet  I  am  greatly  afflicted  with  a  proud  and  self- 
righteous  spirit,  much  more  sensibly  than  I  used  to  be 
formerly.  I  see  that  serpent  rising  and  putting  forth  its 
head  continually,  everywhere,  all  around  me." 

This  one  instance  illustrates  what  takes  place  in  such  an 
experience,  in  many  respects.  It  is  a  process  which  the 
apostles  Paul  and  Peter  compare  to  a  crucifixion.  The 
original  depraved  character  is  called  the  flesh,  and  is 
likened  to  a  body  composed  of  many  members,  each  of 
which  is  to  be  crucified  and  destroyed.  This  radical  process 
of  regeneration  and  sanctification  leads  to  a  consciousness 
of  depths  of  inward  and  hidden  sinfulness,  of  which  a  deep 
innate  depravity  seems  to  give  the  only  adequate  account. 
The  action  of  all  the  powers  seems  to  be  deranged  and 
perverted  by  sin.  The  whole  mind  appears  to  be  a  wonder 
ful  system  in  ruins.  The  heart  is  felt  to  be  deceitful  above 
all  things,  and  desperately  wicked ;  and,  as  such,  is  hidden 
from  the  full  knowledge  of  all  but  God. 

This,  no  doubt,  is  what  Prof.  Hodge  means,  when  he 
says,  "  Conviction  of  sin  under  this  system  is  more  than 
remorse  for  actual  transgressions ;  it  is  also  a  sense  of  the 
thorough  depravity  of  the  whole  nature,  penetrating  far 
beneath  the  acts  of  the  soul,  affecting  its  permanent  moral 
states,  which  lie  beyond  the  reach  of  the  will." 


THE  FIRST  EXPERIENCE.  93 

Under  the  influence  of  such  feelings,  Edwards  says :  "It 
is  affecting  to  think  how  ignorant  I  was,  when  a  young 
Christian,  of  the  bottomless,  infinite  depths  of  wickedness, 
pride,  hypocrisy  and  deceit,  left  in  my  heart.1' 

His  more  mature  experiences  cannot  be  understood, 
unless  we  consider  by  what  principles  he  judged.  His 
standard  was  this  :  "  What  must  my  soul  become  before  it 
is  capable  of  that  pure  and  perfect  sympathy  with  God  in 
which  its  true  life  and  health  consists ;  and  what  are  those 
moral  states,  habits  and  emotions,  which  must  be  eradicated 
in  order  to  secure  these  results?"  All  of  these  he  sets 
down  under  the  category  of  sinful  states  and  emotions.  All 
know  that  he  became  an  eminently  holy  man.  All  know 
that  through  him  God  exercised  an  immense  vital  power  in 
quickening  the  religious  experience  of  the  church.  All  know 
that  no  man  in  severe  trials  ever  displayed  more  of  the 
power  of  godliness  than  he.  Being  thus  restored  to  spir 
itual  health,  was  he  not  qualified  to  judge  what  was  the 
moral  state  from  which  he  had  been  raised  by  the  grace  of 
God  ?  Let  us,  then,  hear  him  state  his  own  views  of  it. 
In  his  more  mature  experiences  he  thus  speaks  of  himself : 

"My  wickedness,  as  I  am  in  myself,  has  long  appeared 
to  me  perfectly  ineffable,  and  swallowing  up  all  thought  and 
imagination  like  an  infinite  deluge,  or  mountains  over  my 
head.  I  know  not  how  to  express  better  what  my  sins 
appear  to  me  to  be,  than  by  heaping  infinite  upon  infinite, 
and  multiplying  infinite  by  infinite.  Very  often,  for  these 
many  years,  these  expressions  are  in  my  mind,  arid  in  my 
mouth,  i  Infinite  upon  infinite !  Infinite  upon  infinite ! ' 
When  I  look  into  my  heart  and  take  a  view  of  my  wicked 
ness,  it  looks  like  an  abyss  infinitely  deeper  than  hell. 
Vnd  it  appears  to  me  that,  were  it  not  for  free  grace, 

Hed  and  raised  to  the  infinite  height  of  all  the  fulness 


94  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

and  glory  of  the  great  Jehovah,  and  the  arm  of  his  power 
and  grace,  stretched  forth  in  all  the  majesty  of  his  power, 
and  in  all  the  glory  of  his  sovereignty,  I  should  appear  sunk 
down  in  my  sins,  below  hell  itself;  far  beyond  the  sight  of 
everything  but  the  eye  of  sovereign  grace,  that  can  pierce 
even  down  to  such  a  depth.  And  yet  it  seems  to  me  that 
my  conviction  of  sin  is  exceedingly  small  and  faint.  It  is 
enough  to  amaze  me,  that  I  have  no  more  sense  of  my  sin. 
I  know,  certainly,  that  I  have  very  little  sense  of  my  sin- 
fulness.  When  I  have  had  turns  of  weeping  and  crying  fo* 
my  sins,  I  thought  I  knew  at  the  time  that  my  repentance 
was  nothing  to  my  sin." 

I  am  aware  that,  to  some,  this  experience  of  Edwards 
will  seem  either  mysterious  or  exaggerated.  It  is,  never 
theless,  an  important  fact,  and  deserves  study.  It  is  to  be 
judged  of  by  the  principles  which  have  been  stated,  and  of 
which  I  shall  speak  more  fully  in  another  place.  It  is 
enough,  at  present,  to  say  that  these  very  remarkable  words 
are  not  to  be  set  aside  with  contempt,  as  the  exaggerated 
professions  of  an  excitable  mind,  incapable  of  clear  and  dis 
criminating  thought.  Their  author  was,  confessedly,  the 
great  metaphysician  of  his  age.  None  knew  better  than  he, 
so  far  as  experience  is  concerned,  what  sin  and  holiness 
were.  And  yet,  such  is  his  mature  report  of  his  own  expe 
rience.  I  believe  that  there  were  real  facts  upon  which  his 
statements  were  based.  What  explanation  ought  to  be 
given  of  them  I  shall  consider  in  another  place. 

To  Edwards,  therefore,  must  it  not  have  appeared  evident 
that  he  had  never,  by  conscious  acts  of  choice,  introduced 
all  of  this  depravity  into  himself,  but  that  his  sins  were,  in 
some  way,  the  development  of  something  from  the  depths  of 
his  being,  that  had  preceded  his  consciousness  and  choice  ? 
Would  it  not  strongly  incline  him, —  as  a  similar  experience 


THE   FIRST   EXPERIENCE.  95 

has  thousands  beside, —  to  the  idea  of  a  deeply  depraved 
nature  before  actual  sin  ? 

Edwards,  moreover,  was  no  less  distinguished  by  a  deep 
sense  of  the  reality  and  power  of  the  malignant  influences  of 
evil  spirits.  He  looked  upon  Satan  as  the  great  framer  of 
systems  of  error,  and  the  author  of  spurious  and  delusive 
religious  affections ;  and  he  compares  men  to  weak  and  silly 
sheep,  constantly  deluded,  deceived,  and  combined  in  evil, 
or  else  frightened  and  scattered  by  his  terrors.  In  the 
word  of  God,  and  in  all  history  too,  as  eloquently  and  log 
ically  set  forth  in  his  treatise  on  original  sin,  he  found  a 
constant  illustration  and  proof  of  the  truth  of  these  views. 
In  this  experience  he  was  but  an  exponent  of  a  class  of  men 
found  in  all  ages.  To  them  has  the  law  of  God  come  home, 
as  it  did  to  Paul,  and,  under  the  influences  of  the  divine 
spirit,  their  conviction  of  sin  has  been  deep  and  agonizing, 
their  regeneration  has  been  thorough,  their  spiritual  expe 
rience  profound,  and  their  new  nature  fully  developed. 

Out  of  such  an  experience  grows  an  unwavering  and 
unconquerable  faith  as  to  the  most  radical  view  of  the  great 
facts  of  man's  ruin.  If  there  is  anything  which  they  know 
with  absolute  certainty,  it  is  the  truth  of  these  facts.  Their 
own  experience,  history,  and  the  Bible,  coincide ;  the  evi 
dence  is  cumulative,  manifold,  irresistible.  They  not  only 
believe,  but,  in  fact,  they  know.  They  are  not  mistaken, 
and  they  know  that  they  are  not.  Such  is  the  legitimate 
tendency  of  an  experimental  knowledge  of  the  truths  of  the 
case  on  regenerated  minds.  They  know  their  original 
depravity,  just  as  a  man  restored  to  health  knows  that  he 
was  diseased  and  is  now  in  health.  He  knows  past  disease 
more  absolutely  by  reason  of  its  contrast  with  present  health. 

Evidence  of  the  truth  of  such  views  of  depravity  they  also 
find  in  the  clear  statements  of  the  word  of  God,  and  in  the 


96  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

history  of  the  world.  Such  views  have,  therefore,  been  very 
extensively  held  by  the  most  powerful  bodies  of  evangelical 
Christians,  as  appears  from  the  quotations  made  from  the 
creeds  of  the  Reformation.  Indeed,  the  Princeton  Review 
alleges,  and,  so  far  as  I  know,  correctly,  that  "there  is  not 
a  creed  of  any  Christian  church  (we  do  not  mean  separate 
congregation)  in  which  the  doctrine  that  inherent  corrup 
tion,  as  existing  prior  to  voluntary  action,  is  of  the  nature 
of  sin,  is  not  distinctly  affirmed.  The  whole  Latin  church, 
the  Lutheran,  all  branches  of  the  Reformed  church,  unite 
in  the  most  express,  nicely-measured  assertions  of  faith  in 
this  doctrine."  (April,  1851,  p.  324.)  Moreover,  men  of 
the  most  eminent  Christian  character,  in  successive  ages, 
such  as  the  Reformers,  the  Puritans,  Edwards,  Chalmers, 
and  the  Haldanes,  have  held  these  views.  In  their  hands, 
too,  deep  and  powerful  results  have  been  produced  by  the 
system. 

Therefore  is  it  that  Dr.  Hodge  asserts,  in  the  Princeton 
Review ,  that  "it  is  an  undeniable  fact,  that  this  system 
underlies  the  piety  of  the  church  in  all  ages.  It  is  the  great 
granitic  formation,  whose  peaks  tower  towards  heaven,  and 
draw  thence  the  waters  of  life,  and  in  whose  capacious  bosom 
repose  those  green  pastures  in  which  the  great  Shepherd 
gathers  and  sustains  his  flock.  It  has  withstood  all  changes, 
and  it  still  stands.  Heat  and  cold,  snow  and  rain,  gentle 
abrasion  and  violent  convulsions,  leave  it  as  it  was.  It 
cannot  be  moved.  In  our  own  age  and  country,  this  system 
of  doctrine  has  had  to  sustain  a  renewed  conflict.  It  has 
been  assailed  by  argument,  by  ridicule,  by  contempt.  It 
has  been  pronounced  absurd,  obsolete,  effete,  powerless.  It 
has  withstood  logic,  indignation,  wit.  *  *  *  Still  it 
stands."  (Prin.  Rev.,  April,  1851,  p.  319.) 

Indeed,  we  think  that  no  one  can  fail  to  see  that  the 


THE    FIRST   EXPERIENCE.  97 

religious  depth  that  has  been  found  in  the  Western  church, 
and  among  the  Reformers,  and  Puritans,  and  their  follow 
ers,  as  compared  with  the  superficiality  of  the  Eastern 
church,  under  the  auspices  of  John  of  Damascus,  and  the 
Greek  fathers,  is  owing  to  the  more  profound  views  of 
human  depravity  which  were  introduced  into  it  by  Augus 
tine,  and  which  gave  a  deep  and  vital  character  to  its  theol 
ogy,  but  which  never  penetrated  and  vitalized  the  Eastern 
church. 

No  one,  we  think,  in  view  of  facts  on  the  great  scale,  can 
deny  that  this  system  has  exerted  a  deeper  and  more 
powerful  influence  on  the  world  than  any  other.  It  has  in 
it  the  elements  of  the  greatest  power,  simply  because  it 
meets  as  no  other  system  does  the  wants  of  the  deepest 
forms  of  Christian  experience,  and  through  such  channels 
the  great  river  of  moral  power  on  earth  must  ever  run. 

And  yet,  powerful  as  it  is,  it  has  never  acted  in  any  com 
munity  without  meeting  the  counter  influence  of  another 
power,  springing  from  the  deepest  sources  of  intuitive  human 
convictions  and  emotions.  And,  therefore,  as  we  proposed, 
we  shall  proceed  to  consider  the  reaction  to  which  this  view 
of  the  system  has  ever  given  rise. 
9 


CHAPTER    IV. 

THE     REACTION. 

WE  have  stated  the  elements  of  power  in  the  first  view 
of  the  system ;  and,  clearly,  they  are  great,  for  a  deep 
Christian  experience  has  ever  been  the  ruling  power  in 
God's  kingdom.  Yet  we  are  obliged  to  add,  that  at  no 
time,  and  in  no  community,  have  its  triumphs  been  universal 
or  permanent.  Its  advocates  have  been  obliged  to  work 
against  a  steady,  powerful  and  deathless  reaction.  Nor  is 
the  reason  obscure. 

As  at  present  adjusted,  it  has  never  been  able  to  prevent, 
or  successfully  to  repel,  a  most  powerful  assault,  prompted, 
not  by  human  depravity  and  carnal  reason,  but  by  the 
divinely-revealed  principles  of  honor  and  of  right.  And  to 
this  assault  its  advocates  have  never  made  a  reply  which 
has  had  any  decisive  power. 

And,  indeed,  at  first  one  wonders  how  even  the  advocates 
of  this  doctrine  can  avoid  seeing  that  it  is  in  direct  conflict 
with  their  own  statements  of  the  principles  of  equity  and  of 
honor.  For  instance ;  Turretin  says  of  new-created  Adam, 
that  if  there  was  in  him  "  any  inclination  to  sin  by  nature, 
then  God  would  be  the  author  of  it,  and  so  the  sin  itself  be 
chargeable  upon  God."  How  much  more  is  this  true,  if,  in 
new-created  beings,  there  is  not  merely  an  inclination  to 
sin,  but  even  a  sinful  nature  before  action,  and  an  entire 
want  of  power  to  do  right ! 


THE    REACTION.  99 

How  explicit,  too,  are  the  statements  of  Dr.  Watts,  that 
it  would  be  unjust  for  God  so  to  form  a  new- created  being 
that  there  should  be  in  his  nature  a  bias  to  evil.  So,  too, 
the  Princeton  divines  tell  us  that  "  a  probation,  in  order  to 
be  fair,  must  afford  as  favorable  a  prospect  of  a  happy  as 
of  an  unhappy  conclusion;  "  and,  by  referring  to  the  proba 
tion  of  Adam  as  a  fair  one,  they  teach  us  that  a  good  moral 
constitution,  well-balanced  powers,  and  a  decided  bias  to 
good,  are  essential  to  such  a  probation. 

But  are  not  men,  by  their  concession,  new-created 
beings?  Do  they  not  explicitly  deny  "any  mysterious 
union  with  Adam,  any  confusion  of  our  identity  with  his  "  ? 
(Theol.  Ess.,  i.  136.)  Is  not  God,  therefore,  truly  the 
immediate  creator  of  every  man, —  at  least,  so  far  as  the 
spirit  is  concerned?  Turretin,  and  the  church  at  large, 
avow  and  defend  this  view. 

Here,  then,  we  have  millions  of  new-created  beings,  com 
mencing  an  eternal  existence  with  sinful  natures  and  a  total 
inability  to  do  good,  even  before  thought  or  action.  Can 
anything  be  more  demonstrably  at  war  with  the  principles 
of  honor  and  of  right  which  they  avow  than  these  facts  ? 

Are  we  to  suppose,  then,  that  the  advocates  of  this  view 
have  not  seen  this  self-evident  conflict,  and  have  made  no 
effort  to  obviate  it?  By  no  means.  They  have  made 
strenuous  efforts  to  defend  the  alleged  facts  on  principles  of 
equity  and  honor.  Indeed,  they  take  a  ground  that  would, 
at  least  in  part,  sustain  their  position,  if  it  were  true.  It 
is,  however,  a  most  remarkable  ground ;  but,  as  it  has  been 
most  extensively  taken  and  held,  and  still  is,  it  deserves 
careful  attention. 

The  ground  is  this, —  that  all  men,  even  before  knowl 
edge  or  action,  and,  indeed,  before  existence,  have  forfeited 
their  rights  as  new-created  beings,  and  have  fallen 


100  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

under  the  just  displeasure  of  God;  and  that  the  existence 
in  them  of  a  depraved  nature,  and  of  inability  to  do  right,  is 
a  punishment  inflicted  on  them  by  God,  in  accordance  with 
their  just  deserts. 

It  is  conceded j  by  the  Reformers  and  their  followers,  that 
God  cannot  be  defended  on  any  ground  unless  on  this.  The 
demands  of  honor  and  right  towards  new-created  beings  they 
fully  admit,  even  to  the  highest  degree.  God  is  absolutely 
bound  by  them  until  they  have  been  forfeited.  But  they 
allege  that  in  the  case  of  all  men  they  have  been  forfeited : 

AND    THEIR    WHOLE    DEFENCE    OF    GOD    TURNS   UPON  THIS 

ALLEGATION.  If  it  can  be  made  out,  the  defence  may  be 
valid.  If  it  cannot  be  made  out,  the  defence  fails.  And  if 
it  fails,  it  is  no  common  failure.  It  involves  God's  honor 
and  justice  as  to  the  eternal  destinies  of  the  countless  mil 
lions  of  the  human  race. 

With  deep  interest,  then,  we  ask,  when  did  all  men  make 
this  alleged  forfeiture,  and  incur  this  liability  ?  The  reply 
is,  never  in  their  own  persons.  Indeed,  it  was  done  before 
they  existed,  by  the  act  of  another,  even  of  Adam. 

But,  in  endeavoring  by  such  a  position  to  avoid  collision 
with  one  law  of  equity  and  honor,  do  they  not  at  once  come 
into  conflict  with  others  ?  Is  it  not  unjust  and  dishonorable 
falsely  to  charge  the  innocent,  and  to  punish  them  for  what 
they  never  did  ?  Is  it  not  unjust  to  decide  that  a  new- 
created  being  has  forfeited  his  right  to  a  good  moral  con 
stitution  and  propensities,  and  power  to  good,  by  an  act 
which  he  never  performed,  and  which  took  place  hundreds 
or  thousands  of  years  before  he  was  created  ? 

Dr.  Alexander  says,  that  ' l  all  intuitively  discern  that 
for  a  ruler  to  punish  the  innocent  is  morally  wrong."  He 
also  says,  that  "where  we  have  intuitive  certainty  of  any 
thing,  it  is  foolish  to  seek  for  other  reasons.1'  But  who 


THE   REACTION.  101 

can  be  innocent  of  a  sin  in  every  possible  respect,  if  those 
are  not  who  did  not  exist  when  it  was  committed  ? 

Of  what  avail,  then,  is  it  to  avoid  a  conflict  with  one  law 
of  equity  and  honor,  merely  by  coming  into  collision  with 
others  no  less  important  and  sacred  ?  What  are  the  naked 
facts  alleged  by  the  advocates  of  this  view'/  They  are 
these :  that  across  the  chasm  of  hundreds  or  thousands  of 
years  of  absolute  non-existence,  the  guilt  and  forfeiture  of 
Adam's  sin  are  transported,  and  ascribed  to  new-created 
beings,  just  beginning  an  immortal  existence,  and  made  the 
ground  of  punishing  them  with  a  depraved  nature  and  ina 
bility  to  do  good.  Can  such  a  procedure  be  made  to  accord 
with  our  intuitive  convictions  of  equity  and  honor  ?  Is  it 
not  punishing  the  innocent  with  infinite  severity,  and  with 
out  a  cause  ? 

Nor  is  any  relief  gained  by  regarding  such  a  sinful  nature 
and  inability  to  do  good  as  coming  on  men  not  as  a  penalty, 
but  as  a  consequence  of  Adam's  sin,  according  to  an  ordi 
nance  of  God  as  an  absolute  sovereign.  Indeed,  this  is  con 
ceded  and  insisted  on,  as  we  shall  see  more  fully  hereafter, 
by  all  the  leading  divines  of  the  Reformation,  and  by  those 
who  in  modern  days  profess  to  walk  most  exactly  in  their 
steps.  The  sovereignty  of  God,  as  they  have  clearly  seen 
and  declared,  implies  no  superiority  to  the  laws  of  equity 
and  honor.  If  their  rights  as  new-created  beings  have  not 
been  forfeited,  God  has  no  right  to  disregard  them. 

But  let  us  look  at  some  of  the  efforts  made  to  defend  the 
alleged  facts  now  under  consideration.     We  shall  then  be 
able  to  judge  what  can  be  said  to  break  the  force  of  the 
principles  of  honor  and  right  to  which  I  have  appealed. 
9* 


CHAPTER    V. 


THE  first  point  of  attack  has  ever  been,  as  we  have 
already  stated,  the  doctrine  of  the  existence  in  a  new-created 
being  of  a  sinful  nature,  for  which  he  is  liable  to  just  pun 
ishment,  and  that  anterior  to  any  knowledge,  will  or  choice, 
of  his  own.  How,  it  is  asked,  can  it  be  honorable  or  right 
for  God  so  to  deal  with  any  new-created  being  ?  To  this 
question  no  one  has  ever  been  able  to  give  any  more  satis 
factory  reply  than  those  we  have  considered.  These  do 
not  seem  to  have  satisfied  even  all  the  friends  of  the  doctrine 
of  an  inherent  depravity  of  nature. 

Indeed,  a  distinguished  theological  professor  (Dr.  Woods), 
after  setting  forth  what  he  asserts  to  be  the  faith  of  the 
church  in  all  ages  on  this  point,  and  surveying  the  discus 
sions  to  which  it  has  given  rise,  takes  distinctly  the  ground 
of  mere  faith  and  mystery ;  that  is,  he  comes  distinctly  to 
the  conclusion  that  it  cannot  be  vindicated  on  any  principles 
of  honor  and  right  known  to  the  human  mind.  Well  may 
he  say  so.  He  expressly  teaches  that  there  is  in  the  nature 
of  man,  anterior  to  knowledge  or  choice,  a  proneness  or 
propensity  to  sin,  which  is  "in  its  own  nature  sinful,"  "the 
essence  of  moral  evil,"  "the  sum  of  all  that  is  vile  and 
hateful."  (Woods'  Works,  vol.  n.  p.  336.)  He  also 
teaches  that  God  inflicts  this  "tremendous  calamity"  on 


THE    REACTION    IRRESISTIBLE.  103 

all  men  for  the  sin  of  one  man.  This,  he  says,  has  been 
the  belief  of  the  church  in  all  ages. 

He  then  asks,  "  But  how  is  this  proceeding  just  to  Adam's 
posterity  )  What  have  they  done,  before  they  commit  sin, 
to  merit  pain  and  death  ?  What  have  they  done  to  merit 
the  evil  of  existing  without  original  righteousness,  and  with 
a  nature  prone  to  sin?"  (Vol.  n.  315.)  To  feel  the 
full  force  of  this  question,  let  it  be  once  more  stated  that 
he  regards  this  proneness  of  nature  to  sin  as  in  itself 
sinful,  yea,  the  essence  of  moral  evil,  the  sum  of  all  that 
is  vile  and  hateful. 

Surely,  questions  more  momentous  than  these  were  never 
proposed.  They  affect  all  that  man  holds  dear  in  all  worlds, 
all  that  is  holy  and  reverend  in  God.  They  are,  also, 
frankly  and  fairly  stated.  What,  then,  is  his  reply  ?  It  is 
a  reply  eminently  worthy  of  profound  attention.  It  touches 
the  very  vitals  of  Christianity.  It  shows,  more  clearly 
than  words  can  utter  it,  the  unfortunate,  the  defenceless 
condition  of  the  system  of  Christianity  when  thus  presented. 

What,  then,  is  the  reply  ?  In  essence,  it  is  simply  this. 
It  is  utterly  beyond  our  powers  to  show  that  such  a  pro 
ceeding  on  the  part  of  God  is  either  just  or  honorable. 

"Here  (he  says)  our  wisdom  fails.  We  apply  in  vain 
to  human  reason,  or  human  consciousness,  for  an  answer." 
Nay,  more;  he  even  admits  that  such  conduct  is  "contrary 
to  the  dictates  of  our  fallible  minds. ,"  Yet  he  still 
insists  that  we  ought  not  to  judge  at  all  in  the  case,  but  to 
believe  that  it  is  right,  because  God  has  done  it.  u  God  has 
not  made  us  judges.  The  case  lies  wholly  out  of  our 
province." 

But  if,  as  we  have  shown,  God  has  made  the  human  mind 
to  form  intuitive  convictions  of  what  is  right  and  honorable 
in  such  cases  if  such  convictions  are  a  revelation  of  God 


104  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

himself,  if  he  appeals  to  them  in  his  own  defence,  then 
plainly  the  case  does  not  lie  wholly  out  of  our  province. 
How  can  we  have  any  rational  ideas  of  mercy  in  a  case 
where,  as  God  has  made  our  minds,  we  must  see  that  the 
most  sacred  principles  of  honor  and  right  have  been 
violated  ?  Is  such  the  basis  of  the  greatest  of  all  God's 
works,  the  redemption  of  the  church  ? 

That  the  human  mind  has  strong  intuitive  convictions  in 
this  case,  Dr.  Woods  concedes.  The  acts  ascribed  to  God, 
according  to  our  necessary  convictions,  appear  dishonorable 
and  unjust.  But,  to  concede  that,  in  this  case,  these  moral 
intuitions  are  of  divine  origin,  would  be  to  abandon  the 
argument.  Nothing,  therefore,  remains  but  in  some  way  to 
destroy  their  power,  by  giving  them  an  evil  name.  This  is 
commonly  done  by  calling  them  "  human  reason,"  or  "  un- 
sanctified  philosophy,"  or  " natural  reason,"  or  "carnal 
reason,"  and  then  warning  all  who  revere  God  and  love  the 
truth  not  to  be  carried  away  with  the  subtlety  of  human 
reason,  or  by  philosophical  or  metaphysical  sagacity  and 
adroitness.  The  following  is  an  illustration  of  what  I  mean. 
Dr.  Woods  says : 

"It  is  no  difficult  task  for  the  subtlety  of  human 
reason,  to  urge  very  plausible  arguments  against  the  com 
mon  doctrine  of  man's  innate  moral  depravity.  But,  so  far 
as  the  doctrine  is  taught  us  by  the  inspired  writers,  it  is  our 
duty  to  hold  it  fast,  however  unable  we  may  be  to  sustain  it 
by  metaphysical  reasoning,  or  to  remove  the  objections 
which  unsanctified  philosophy  may  set  in  array  against  it. 
It  is  a  doctrine  which  is  not  to  be  brought  for  trial  to  the 
bar  of  human  reason.  Mere  natural  reason,  mere  philo 
sophical  or  metaphysical  sagacity,  transcends  its  just  bounds, 
and  commits  a  heinous  sacrilege,  when  it  attacks  this  pri 
mary  article  of  our  faith,  and  labors  to  distort  it,  to  under- 


THE   REACTION    IRRESISTIBLE.  105 

mine  it,  or  to  expose  its  truth  or  its  importance  to  distrust." 
(Woods,  vol.  n  328.) 

I  admit  fully  that  the  essential  facts  of  human  depravity, 
as  I  have  set  them  forth,  are  of  unspeakable  moment,  and 
that  no  revealed  doctrine  of  the  Bible  is  to  be  given  up  at 
the  demand  of  unsanctified  philosophy  or  carnal  reason. 
But  how  does  it  appear  that  the  intuitive  decisions  of  the 
human  mind  as  to  honor  and  right,  in  view  of  the  facts 
alleged,  are  unsanctified  philosophy  and  carnal  reason  7 
How  does  it  appear  that  they  are  not  of  divine  origin,  yea, 
the  very  voice  of  God  through  the  human  soul  ?  Till  this 
can  be  shown,  it  is  not  lawful  to  evade  their  power  by 
resorting  to  mystery  and  faith  in  God. 

Nor  ought  it  to  be  forgotten  that  this  style  of  reasoning 
is  easily  retorted.  It  is  only  necessary  to  assume  that  the 
theory  in  question  is  based  upon  a  false  interpretation  of 
the  word  of  God,  and  then  to  warn  all  who  fear  God  to 
avoid  the  sacrilegous  audacity  involved  in  doing  violence  to 
the  divinely  revealed  principles  of  equity  and  honor,  for  the 
sake  of  sustaining  the  unfounded  dogmas  and  crude  spec 
ulations  of  human  theorizers.  If  in  this  there  would  be  no 
fair  argument,  as  I  concede, —  if  it  would  be  but  begging 
the  question  in  debate, —  why  is  the  same  style  of  argument 
any  better  on  the  other  side  of  the  question  ? 

Dr.  Hodge,  an  eminent  leader  of  the  Princeton  divines, 
in  view  of  the  same  alleged  facts,  at  first  assumes  a  ground 
of  defence  on  the  principles  of  justice.  It  would  not  be 
just,  he  tells  us,  to  condemn  men  without  a  probation,  either 
personally  or  in  Adam.  But  a  fair  probation  they  have 
had.  But  even  he  must  come  at  last  to  the  same  issue. 
His  account  of  the  matter  is  this  :  God's  proceedings  can 
be  justified,  because,  before  inflicting  this  tremendous  evil, 
the  race  had  a  probation,  through  Adam  as  a  representative ; 


106  CONFLICT    OF    AGES. 

and  that,  since  he  sinned  in  this  character,  all  men  forfeited 
their  original  rights,  and  became  obnoxious  to  penalty. 
Hence,  the  evils  that  come  on  men  through  his  offence  are 
not  an  arbitrary  infliction,  nor  merely  a  natural  consequence, 
but  the  infliction  of  a  penalty. 

But  let  us  look  a  little  more  closely  through  these  words 
at  the  real  facts  of  the  case,  as  held  by  Professor  Hodge, 
and  see  if  any  real  relief  is  gained.  When,  then,  this 
penalty  was  originally  denounced  on  them,  had  man  trans 
gressed  any  law  ?  None ;  neither  the  law  of  Moses,  nor 
the  law  of  nature.  Was  there  in  them  any  innate  depravity, 
on  account  of  which  they  could  be  punished  ?  None  at  all. 
The  infliction  of  the  penalty  is  antecedent  to  all  these 
things.  What,  then,  is  this  penalty?  It  is  the  greatest 
evil  of  which  the  mind  of  man  can  conceive.  It  is  an 
entire  forfeiture  of  the  favor  of  God.  It  is  the  doom  of 
commencing  their  existence  out  of  fellowship  with  Him. 
It  is  to  be  utterly  deprived  of  those  original  influences  of 
the  Spirit  without  which  the  mind  cannot  be  developed  in 
the  image  of  God,  but  becomes  inevitably  sinful  and  cor 
rupt,  even  before  choice  and  action ;  and  all  this  is  denounced 
on  all  men  before  they  have  personally  acted  at  all, 
arid  yet  "  it  is  of  all  evils  the  essence  and  the  sum."  That 
this  is  a  fair  statement  of  his  views  the  following  passage 
will  show.  (Hodge  on  Romans,  pp.  189,  190.) 

After  considering  some  supposable  causes  of  the  penal 
evils  that  are  asserted  to  come  on  the  race  through  Adam, 
he  decidedly  rejects  them,  and  thus  proceeds  : 

"  No  one  of  these  causes,  nor  all  combined,  can  account 
for  the  infliction  of  all  the  penal  evils  to  which  men  are 
subjected.  The  great  fact  in  the  apostle's  mind  was,  that 
God  regards  and  treats  all  men,  from  the  first  moment 
of  their  existence^  as  out  of  fellowship  with  himself. 


THE    REACTION    IRRESISTIBLE.  107 

AS  HAVING  FORFEITED  HIS  FAVOR.  Instead  of  entering 
into  communion  with  them  the  moment  they  begin  to  exist 
(as  he  did  with  Adam),  and  forming  them  by  his  spirit  in 
his  own  moral  image,  he  regards  them  as  out  of  his  favor, 
and  withholds  the  influences  of  the  Spirit. 

11  Why  is  this  ?  Why  does  God  thus  deal  with  the  human 
race  ?  Here  is  a  form  of  death  which  the  violation  of  the 
law  of  Moses,  the  transgression  of  the  law  of  nature,  the 
existence  of  innate  depravity,  separately  or  combined, 
are  insufficient  to  account  for.  Its  infliction  is  antecedent 

to  them  all ;    AND   YET   IT   IS   OF   ALL   EVILS   THE    ESSENCE 

AND  THE  SUM.  Men  begin  to  exist  out  of  communion 
with  God.  This  is  the  fact  which  no  sophistry  can  get  out 
of  the  Bible,  or  the  history  of  the  world.  Paul  tells  us 
why  it  is.  It  is  because  we  fell  in  Adam ;  it  is  for  the 
offence  of  one  man  that  all  thus  die.  The  covenant  being 
formed  with  Adam,  not  only  for  himself,  but  also  for  his 
posterity, —  in  other  words,  Adam  having  been  placed  on 
trial  not  for  himself  only,  but  also  for  his  race, —  his  act 
was,  in  virtue  of  this  relation,  REGARDED  AS  OUR  ACT. 
God  withdrew  from  us,  as  he  did  from  him  ;  in  consequence 
of  this  withdrawal  we  begin  to  exist  in  moral  darkness, 
destitute  of  a  disposition  to  delight  in  God,  and  prone  to 
delight  in  ourselves  and  the  world.  The  sin  of  Adam, 
therefore,  ruined  us ;  it  was  the  ground  of  the  withdrawing 
of  the  divine  favor  from  the  whole  race  ;  and  the  inter 
vention  of  the  Son  of  God  for  our  salvation  is  an  act  of 
pure,  sovereign  and  wonderful  grace."  And  again  :  "The 
infliction  of  a  penalty  supposes  the  violation  of  law.  But 
such  evil  was  inflicted  before  the  giving  of  the  Mosaic  law  ; 
it  comes  on  men  before  the  transgression  of  the  law  of 
nature,  or  even  the  existence  of  inherent  depravity.  It 


108  CONFLICT   OP  AGES. 

must,  therefore ,  be  for  the  offence  of  one  man  that  judgment 
has  come  upon  all  men  to  condemnation." 

Now,  it  will  be  observed,  that  the  whole  of  this  attempted 
vindication  of  God  in  inflicting  such  a  penalty  turns  simply 
and  only  upon  the  assumed  fact  that  "  He  regarded  as 
our  act"  the  act  of  Adam, —  an  act  which  it  is  at  the 
same  time  conceded  was  not  our  act.  It  is  conceded  that 
we  had  not  sinned  in  any  sense ;  we  had  not  violated  the 
law  of  Moses,  nor  of  nature,  nor  of  Paradise,  and  there 
was  in  us  no  innate  depravity.  Nay,  we  did  not  even  exist. 
Yet  before  our  existence  the  penalty  on  us  was  denounced, 
and  before  any  action  of  ours  it  is  inflicted, — a  penalty 
which  "  is  of  all  evils  the  essence  and  the  sum,"  and 
inflicted  solely  on  the  ground  that  God  regarded  as  ours  an 
act  which  was  confessedly  not  ours. 

The  question  by  such  a  defence  is  merely  shifted ;  but  it 
returns  with  augmented  force.  On  what  principles  of 
honor  or  of  right  is  God  to  be  justified  in  regarding  as  ours 
an  act  which  was  not  ours,  and  on  such  a  ground  inflict 
ing  on  us  the  greatest  of  all  conceivable  evils  ?  Is  not  the 
imputation  in  question  an  additional  act  of  injustice,  instead 
of  a  just  ground  of  inflicting  a  penalty  so  severe? 

On  this  point  Prof.  Hodge  has  thrown  no  light.  No 
light  can  be  thrown  upon  it.  So  long  as  he  holds  such 
views,  he  must  at  last  —  as  in  fact  he  does  —  come  to  the 
ground  of  mystery  and  faith  taken  by  Dr.  Woods.  That 
venerable  father,  conceding,  as  he  does,  that  such  facts  are 
against  our  natural  intuitions  of  honor  and  right,  is 
obliged  to  say,  "Here  our  wisdom  fails.  We  apply  in 
vain  to  human  reason  and  human  consciousness  for  an 
answer.  We  are  perplexed  and  confounded,  and  find  no 
resting-place  until  we  seize  the  sublime  truth,  that  '  God's 
ways  are  not  our  ways,  nor  his  thoughts  our  thoughts,'  and 


THE   REACTION    IRRESISTIBLE.  109 

that  all  his  acts  and  all  his  appointments  are  right."  Prof. 
Hodge  must,  and  does  at  last,  join  Dr.  Woods  in  thus 
rejecting  the  testimony  of  our  intuitive  convictions  of  honor 
and  right,  and  in  retreating  beneath  the  shelter  of  mystery 
and  faith. 

With  reference  to  these  dealings  of  God  with  our  race, 
he  distinctly  says  that  they  cannot  be  "  explained  on  the 
common-sense  principles  of  moral  government.  The  system 
which  Paul  taught  was  not  a  system  of  common  sense, 
but  of  profound  and  awful  mystery."  (Prin.  Rev.,  April, 
1851,  p.  318.) 

Still,  there  are  certain  things  from  which  they  both 
shrink  ;  and,  in  so  doing,  they,  in  at  least  one  particular, 
admit  the  authority  of  these  same  natural  intuitions,  which 
they  have  just  rejected.  Dr.  Woods  regards  as  unauthor 
ized  and  appalling  the  position  that  infant  children,  who 
are  not  guilty  of  any  actual  sin,  either  outwardly  or 
inwardly,  will  be  doomed  to  misery  in  the  world  to  come, 
merely  for  sinful  propensity, —  forgetting  that  elsewhere  he 
had  declared  it  to  be  the  very  essence  of  all  depravity. 

Dr.  Hodge  also  repudiates  the  doctrine  "  that  eternal 
misery  is  inflicted  on  any  man  for  the  sin  of  Adam, 
irrespective  of  inherent  depravity  or  actual  transgression." 
But  why  should  even  these  views  be  repudiated,  or  regarded 
as  appalling  ? 

Have  they  not  been  taught  and  defended  by  the  same 
plea  of  faith  and  mystery  to  which  Dr.  Woods  and  Dr. 
Hodge  resort,  in  opposition  to  the  most  obvious  principles 
of  equity  and  honor  ?  We  shall  soon  see  that  they  have 
been.  Why,  then,  do  they  repudiate  them,  or  regard  them 
as  appalling  ? 

Is  it  not  merely  because  they  are  at  war  with   those 
intuitive  principles  of  honor  and  of  right  which  God  has 
10 


110  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

made  the  mind  to  form?  But  are  not  the  other  facts, 
defended  by  both,  as  really  against  those  principles ?  Dr. 
Woods  concedes  that  they  are  "contrary  to  the  dictates  of 
our  minds  "  (vol.  ir.  p.  315),  but  attempts  to  weaken  tlio 
force  of  the  concession  by  calling  them  "fallible  minds." 
But  if  our  intuitive  decisions  are  fallible  in  one  case,  why 
not  in  another  ?  It  certainly  is  an  intuitive  perception  of 
the  human  mind  —  if  there  is  any  —  that  to  regard  that  as 
our  act  which  is  not  our  act,  and,  on  this  ground,  to  inflict 
on  us,  before  knowledge  or  action  of  any  sort,  a  penalty 
which  "is  of  all  evils  the  essence  and  the  sum."  is  as 
much  at  war  with  the  principles  of  honor  and  of  right  as 
any  act  whatever  can  be.  Therefore,  if  this  intuition  is 
delusive,  what  ground  is  there  for  trusting  any  other? 
True,  it  seems  to  us  appalling  and  unjust  in  the  highest 
degree  to  sentence  a  human  being  to  eternal  misery  who 
has  never  acted  at  all,  whether  it  be  done  on  the  ground 
of  a  propensity  of  which  he  is  not  the  author,  or  an  act 
which  he  never  performed.  But  our  intuitions  of  right  are 
no  more  clear  against  such  acts  as  those  which  Dr.  Woods 
and  Dr.  Hodge  condemn,  than  they  are  against  those  which 
they  justify  in  God.  If  they  are  fallible  in  one  case,  why 
not  in  the  other  ? 

After  all,  the  course  of  Abelard,  Pascal  and  others,  was 
the  only  thoroughly  consistent  course.  They  boldly  took 
the  ground  that  God  did  condemn  innocent  beings  to  end 
less  misery  for  Adam's  sin,  and  that  on  this  subject  our 
ideas  of  honor  and  right  are  not  to  be  trusted,  because  not 
common  to  us  and  to  God. 

Listen  to  Pascal  :  "What  can  be  more  contrary  to  the 
rules  of  our  wretched  justice  than  to  damn  eternally  an 
infant,  incapable  of  volition,  for  an  offence  in  which  lie 
seems  to  have  had  no  share,  and  which  was  committed  six 


THE   REACTION    IRRESISTIBLE.  Ill 

thousand  years  before  he  was  born?  Certainly  nothing 
shocks  us  more  rudely  than  this  doctrine ;  and  yet,  without 
this  mystery, —  the  most  incomprehensible  of  all, —  we  are 
incomprehensible  to  ourselves."  Yes.  He  reverently 
believed  the  tremendous  fact  alleged,  and  thousands  of 
others  have  done  the  same, —  on  the  ground  that,  though  at 
war  with  our  necessary  and  intuitive  convictions  of  justice, 
still  those  convictions  are  "  wretched,"  and  not  worthy  of 
confidence.  "  Such,  indeed,"  said  they,  "  are  our  views 
of  justice,  but  they  are  not  the  views  of  God." 

Listen  next  to  Abelard  :  "  Would  it  not  be  deemed  the 
summit  of  injustice  among  men,  if  any  one  should  cast  an 
innocent  son,  for  the  sin  of  a  father,  into  those  flames,  even 
if  they  endured  but  a  short  time  1  How  much  more  so,  if 
eternal  ?  Truly,  I  confess  this  would  be  unjust  in  men, 
because  they  are  forbidden  to  avenge  even  their  own  real 
injuries.  But  it  is  not  so  in  God,  who  says,  '  Vengeance 
is  mine,  I  will  repay  ; '  and  again,  in  another  place,  1 1  will 
kill,  and  I  will  make  alive.'  For  God  commits  no  injustice 
towards  his  creature  in  whatever  way  he  treats  him, — 
whether  he  assigns  him  to  punishment  or  to  life.  *  * 
In  whatever  way  God  may  wish  to  treat  his  creature,  he 
can  be  accused  of  no  injustice  ;  nor  can  anything  be  called 
evil  in  any  way,  if  it  is  done  according  to  his  will.  Nor 
can  we,  in  any  other  way,  distinguish  good  from  evil, 
except  by  noticing  what  is  agreeable  to  his  will."  (Opera. 
Paris,  1616.  p.  395.)  So,  then,  Abelard  deemed  it  just 
in  God  to  cast  an  "innocent"  child  into  eternal  flames 
for  the  sin  of  Adam  ;  and  that,  in  whatever  way  God  should 
treat  any  of  his  creatures,  it  would  be  just. 

Is  not  this  a  distinct  avowal  of  the  doctrine  so  sublimely 
repudiated  by  Abraham,  the  friend  of  God,  when  he 
appealed  to  the  eternal  principles  of  right,  as  conceived  of 


112  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

by  the  human  mind,  as  binding  God  also?  "  That  be  far 
from  thee  to  do  after  this  manner,  to  slay  the  righteous 
with  the  wicked ;  and  that  the  righteous  should  be  as  the 
wicked,  that  be  far  from  thee.  Shall  not  the  Judge  of  all 
the  earth  do  right?"  And  did  not  God  sanction  this 
appeal  ? 

But,  at  all  events,  Abelard  was  consistent.  Entangled 
in  the  Romish  system,  from  which  he  could  not  fully  extri 
cate  himself,  he  ascribed  to  God  acts  at  war  with  the  intui 
tive  moral  convictions  of  the  human  mind ;  and  what  else 
could  he  do,  except  to  say  that,  however  such  acts  might 
seem  to  man,  they  appeared  right  to  God,  since  in  his  idea 
and  in  reality  right  consisted  simply  in  following  his  own 
will.  Thus  did  Abelard  virtually  reject  our  ideas  of  right, 
as  false  and  unworthy  of  confidence. 

But,  on  this  ground,  there  is  no  standard  by  which  the 
creatures  of  God  can  judge  of  his  character  ;  and  it  would  be 
absurd  to  ask,  Shall  not  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth  do 
right  ?  for  certainly  he  will  always  do  what  he  in  fact  wills 
to  do,  and  this,  according  to  Abelard,  is  the  standard  of 
right.  Just  as  if  there  were  no  essential  difference  between 
benevolence  and  malevolence,  between  a  purpose  to  produce 
a  happy  universe  and  a  purpose  to  produce  a  miserable  one  ! 
Just  as  if  God  could  make  it  right  to  treat  the  innocent  and 
the  guilty  as  if  there  were  no  difference  in  their  character ; 
or  to  make  a  law,  and  then  punish  with  eternal  misery  all 
who  obey,  and  reward  all  who  break  it ;  or  to  hate  all  who 
love  and  honor  him,  and  to  love  all  who  hate  and  dishonor 
him !  But  enough.  Nothing  but  the  supposed  necessity 
of  defending  acts  of  gross  injustice  falsely  ascribed  to  God 
could  ever  have  driven  a  man  like  Abelard  —  one  of  the 
most  independent  thinkers  of  his  age  —  upon  ground  so 
truly  appalling. 


THE   REACTION    IRRESISTIBLE.  113 

And  yet,  even  Dr.  Chalmers,  at  this  late  day,  has  taken 
a  similar  ground.  He  adopts  it  "  as  the  truth  of  the  case 
that  an  individual  is  justly  culpable  for  an  iniquitous  deed, 
done,  not  by  himself,  but  by  another,  who  lived  nearly  six 
thousand  years  ago."  And  yet  he  admits  that  "  his  own 
moral  sense  is  altogether  unable  to  apprehend  it."  This 
is  not  all.  His  moral  sense  is  altogether  against  it. 

In  principle,  however,  Dr.  Woods,  Dr.  Hodge,  Pascal, 
Abelard  and  Dr.  Chalmers,  all  stand  on  the  same  ground. 
In  order  to  defend  certain  alleged  acts  of  God,  which  are  at 
war  with  the  intuitive  convictions  of  the  human  mind  as  to 
honor  and  right,  they  all  reject  —  though  not  all  to  the 
same  extent  —  the  authority  of  those  convictions,  and  call 
the  application  of  them  to  those  acts  an  improper  rational 
izing. 

Now,  in  reply  to  this  charge  of  improper  rationalizing,  it 
is  enough  to  say  that,  as  has  been  abundantly  shown,  it  is 
a  doctrine  of  the  word  of  God,  revealed  as  plainly  as  the 
doctrine  of  depravity,  that  such  intuitive  convictions  of  the 
human  mind  are,  in  fact,  a  revelation,  and  a  law  of  God 
himself ;  and  that  their  authority  is  supreme,  and  that  God 
adopts  them  as  the  rule  of  his  own  conduct,  and  admits  that 
he  is  bound  by  them,  and  declares  that  he  always  observes 
them,  and  is  ready  to  have  all  his  acts  tested  by  them. 
Therefore,  in  denying  that  he  has  done  such  acts  as  these 
divines  ascribe  to  him,  we  not  only  stand  on  scripture 
ground,  but,  still  more,  we  obey  an  explicit  requisition  of 
God,  and  do  him  the  highest  honor. 

The  intuitive  convictions  of  the  minds  of  created  beings, 
as  to  honor  and  dishonor,  right  and  wrong,  are  the  most 
important  in  the  universe.  They  are  the  voice  of  God  him 
self  in  the  soul.  On  them  all  just  views  of  God  depend. 
On  them,  as  a  basis,  his  universal  and  eternal  government 


114  CONFLICT   01?  AGES. 

must  ever  rest.  Shake  them,  and  you  shake  the  very 
foundations  of  his  kingdom ;  for  righteousness  and  judgment 
are  the  habitation  of  his  throne. 

Moreover,  so  long  as  any  one  clearly  sees  what  he  regards 
as  acts  of  God  to  be  at  war  with  these  fundamental  princi 
ples  of  equity  and  honor,  genuine,  honest  and  honorable 
conviction  of  sin,  confession  and  repentance,  are  impossible. 
To  thinking  minds  in  this  state  it  is  of  no  avail  to  resort,  by 
a  familiar  analogy,  to  the  case  of  a  man  who  has  fallen  into 
the  ocean,  and  to  whom  a  rope  is  thrown.  In  vain  are  they 
told  that  he  will  not  waste  his  time  in  speculating  whether 
he  was  thrown  overboard  honorably,  or  dishonorably,  or  acci 
dentally,  but  will  at  once  lay  hold  of  the  rope,  that  he  may 
be  saved.  To  those  who  speak  thus  they  will  say,  ' l  You  do 
not  reflect  that  a  spirit  cannot  lay  hold  of  the  rope  of  salva 
tion  without  repentance,  and  that  true  repentance  implies  a 
sincere  confession  that  the  conduct  of  God  has  been  honor 
able  and  right,  and  that  of  the  sinner  dishonorable  and 
wrong ;  and  this  is  the  very  point  on  which  we  have  diffi 
culties  which  we  long  to  remove,  in  order  that  we  may  con 
fess  sincerely  and  honorably,  and  not  hypocritically,  and 
under  the  influence  of  selfish  fear." 

The  only  practical  course,  so  long  as  these  views  are 
retained,  is  to  suppress  or  prevent,  if  possible,  such  an 
action  of  the  moral  nature.  Within  certain  limits,  this  is 
possible.  The  influence  of  early  education,  and  a  reverence 
for  sacred  things,  may  keep  the  minds  of  many  at  rest.  If 
objections  are  raised,  the  consideration  of  them  may  be 
declined,  on  the  ground  that  the  system  of  Christianity  "  is 
not  a  system  of  common  sense,  but  of  profound  and  awful 
mystery,"  and  that  it  is  not  to  be  tried  before  the  bar  of 
reason.  They  can  be  taught  to  withdraw  their  minds  from 
all  such  questions,  and  fix  them  on  the  facts  as  developed  in 


THE   REACTION    IRRESISTIBLE.  115 

experience  and  in  the  scripture,  and  to  aim  at  practical 
results.  As  the  system  in  question  now  stands,  this  is 
clearly  the  wisest  course  for  its  advocates.  For,  so  far  as 
the  minds  of  men  can  be  called  away  from  such  points,  and 
fixed  on  the  legitimate  evidences  of  their  guilt  and  ruin, 
many  will  be  alarmed,  and  brought  to  seek  salvation  in 
Christ.  And,  to  a  very  considerable  extent,  by  organiza 
tion,  and  the  pressure  of  denominational  public  sentiment 
on  the  mind  from  childhood,  this  can  be  done. 

Nevertheless,  since  these  facts  are  within  the  proper 
province  of  the  mind,  a  universal  and  permanent  suppres 
sion  of  the  action  of  the  instinctive  convictions  of  the  human 
race  as  to  honor  and  right  is  not  possible,  and,  if  it  were, 
it  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  purposes  of  God  that  it 
should  be  effected.  He  has  done  nothing  at  war  with  those 
principles  of  honor  and  right  that  he  has  implanted  in  the 
human  mind ;  and,  therefore,  he  does  not  fear  to  have  his 
system  judged  by  them.  Nay,  there  is  reason  to  believe 
that  he  has  allowed  these  principles  to  be  embodied  as  at 
present  they  are  in  the  Unitarian  body  with  a  view  to  this 
result. 


CHAPTER    VI. 

OR     THE     PHILOS 
OPHY     OF     UNITARIAN     THEOLOGY. 

WE  come,  next,  to  the  development  of  the  second  of  those 
experiences  of  which  I  have  spoken,  as  originating  from  the 
influence  upon  the  human  mind  of  the  conflict  of  the  great 
moving  powers  of  Christianity.  It  is  an  entire  recoil  from 
Old  School  theology  to  the  other  extreme.  It  is  an  expe 
rience  in  which  a  feeling  sense  of  the  truth  and  importance 
of  the  great  principles  of  honor  and  right,  in  their  relations 
to  God,  so  far  gains  the  ascendency  as  to  lead  to  the  entire 
rejection  of  the  radical  facts  which  have  been  stated  con 
cerning  human  depravity  and  the  ruined  condition  of  man. 

This  experience  has  found  a  more  consistent  and  complete 
development  among  the  Unitarians  of  New  England  than 
ever  before ;  for,  in  the  case  of  such  as  Pelagius,  Socinus, 
and  Dr.  J.  Taylor,  it  existed,  as  will  hereafter  appear,  in 
connection  with  a  greater  or  less  number  of  inconsistent 
truths,  but  here  its  influence  has  extended  logically  through 
the  whole  system. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  orthodox  views  of  the  doctrines  of 
regeneration,  the  atonement,  the  Trinity,  and  other  parts 
of  their  system,  naturally  correspond  with  their  views  of 
human  depravity.  The  great  end  of  their  system  is  to 
restore  man  from  the  state  of  sin  and  ruin  into  which  he  has 
fallen.  Of  course,  a  renunciation  of  their  views  as  to  that 


THE   SECOND    EXPERIENCE.  117 

state  of  sin  and  ruin  naturally  leads  to  an  effort  at  a  self- 
consistent  readjustment  of  the  whole  system.  Nowhere  has 
this  effort  been  more  consistently  and  thoroughly  carried  out 
than  in  New  England. 

When  we  consider  the  original  character  of  the  Puritan 
fathers  of  New  England,  and  their  strong  attachment  to  the 
faith  of  the  Reformers,  it  may  seem  surprising  that  a  defec 
tion  from  their  principles  so  extensive,  and  including  a  body 
of  men  of  so  much  intellectual  power,  should  have  occurred 
as  it  has  in  the  very  heart  of  New  England. 

With  some,  a  ready  and  familiar  solution  of  the  fact  is, 
to  refer  it  to  the  depravity  of  the  human  heart,  and  its 
aversion  to  the  humbling  truths  of  the  gospel.  But, 
although  I  am  as  fully  assured  as  any  one  can  be  of  the 
deep  depravity  and  deceitfulness  of  the  human  heart,  I  can 
not  believe  that  this  solution  can  furnish  a  full,  adequate  and 
truly  philosophical  account  of  the  matter.  I  do  not  believe 
that  this  great  mental  movement  and  revolution  will  ever 
be  properly  understood,  until  it  is  seen  and  conceded  that 
the  influence  of  an  important  part  of  the  truth  of  God  was 
one  of  the  most  powerful  causes  which  was  concerned  in 
producing  it.  I  refer  to  that  part  which  I  have  already 
developed  in  the  statement  which  I  have  made  of  the  prin 
ciples  of  equity  and  of  honor,  in  the  dealings  of  God  with 
new-created  minds. 

The  reality  and  truth  of  those  principles,  it  will  be  remem 
bered,  has  been  in  all  ages  fully  conceded,  or,  rather,  asserted 
by  the  orthodox ;  and  the  only  ground  of  justifying  God,  in 
not  applying  them  to  men  in  this  world,  was  the  allegation 
that  he  imputed  to  them  the  sin  of  Adam,  and  regarded  them 
as  having  thus  forfeited  all  their  rights.  The  invalidity  of 
this  justification  I  have  already  set  forth.  Is  it  to  be  won 
dered  at  that  the  free  and  powerful  minds  of  New  England 


118  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

could  not  always  be  held  by  such  views,  or  that  they  should 
at  last  recoil  from  the  whole  system  which  was  made  to  rest 
upon  them  ?  Even  before  the  full  and  open  development 
of  Unitarianism,  many  of  the  strongest  and  most  thinking 
minds  were  reacting  against  the  system  which  this  view 
presented  to  them.  They  could  not  but  regard  it  as  dark, 
dreadful  and  unjust.  The  case  of  John  Adams  —  after 
wards  President  of  the  United  States  —  is  a  striking  illus 
tration  of  the  truth  of  these  remarks. 

After  leaving  college  it  was  his  original  design,  as  we 
learn  from  his  diary,  to  prepare  for  the  life  of  a  clergyman ; 
but  doctrinal  difficulties  prevented.  Under  date  of  August 
22,  1756,  he  thus  writes, —  being  at  that  time  engaged  in 
teaching  a  school  in  Worcester,  and  having  just  decided  to 
commence  the  study  of  the  law  : 

u  22,  Sunday.  — My  inclination,  I  think,  was  to  preach  ; 
however,  that  would  not  do."  *  "The  reason  of  my 
quitting  divinity  was  my  opinion  concerning  some  disputed 
points."  He  was  at  this  time  a  young  man,  having  only 
completed  his  twentieth  year.  By  consulting  the  record  of 
the  preceding  Sabbath,  we  can  look  deeply  into  his  heart, 
and  see  how  he  was  affected  by  one  of  these  "  disputed 
points,"-— the  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin. 
Though  but  a  youth,  he  writes  with  strong  common  sense, 
and  with  the  clearness  and  force  that  distinguished  his 
maturer  years : 

11  If  one  man  or  being,  out  of  pure  generosity  and  without 
any  expectation  of  returns,  is  about  to  confer  any  favor  or 
emolument  upon  another,  he  has  a  right  and  is  at  liberty 
to  choose  in  what  manner  and  by  what  means  to  confer  it. 
He  may  confer  the  favor  by  his  own  hand,  or  by  the  hand 
of  his  servant ;  and  the  obligation  to  gratitude  is  equally 
strong  upon  the  benefited  being.  The  mode  of  bestowing 


THE  SECOND    EXPERIENCE.  119 

does  not  diminish  the  kindness,  provided  the  commodity  or 
good  is  brought  to  us  equally  perfect,  and  without  our 
expense.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  one  being  is  the 
original  cause  of  pain,  sorrow  or  suffering,  to  another, 
voluntarily,  and  without  provocation,  it  is  injurious  to  that 
other,  whatever  means  he  might  employ,  and  whatever  cir 
cumstances  the  conveyance  of  the  injury  might  be  attended 
with.  Thus,  we  are  equally  obliged  to  the  supreme  Being 
for  the  information  he  has  given  us  of  our  duty,  whether  by 
the  constitution  of  our  minds  and  bodies,  or  by  a  supernat 
ural  revelation.  For  an  instance  of  the  latter,  let  us  take 
original  sin.  Some  say  that  Adam's  sin  was  enough  to 
damn  the  whole  human  race,  without  any  actual  crimes 
committed  by  any  of  them.  Now,  this  guilt  is  brought 
upon  them  not  by  their  own  rashness  and  indiscretion,  not 
by  their  own  wickedness  and  vice,  but  by  the  supreme 
Being.  This  guilt  brought  upon  us  is  a  real  injury  and 
misfortune,  because  it  renders  us  worse  than  not  to  be ;  and, 
therefore,  making  us  guilty  on  account  of  Adam's  delega 
tion,  or  representing  all  of  us.  is  not  in  the  least  diminish 
ing  the  injury  and  injustice,  but  only  changing  the  mode  of 
conveyance.'7 

Judge  Story,  too,  that  great  luminary  of  American  juris 
prudence,  though  educated  in  the  Calvinistic  faith,  before 
he  finished  his  college  life  turned  from  that  system,  —  under 
the  influences  of  similar  causes, —  and,  with  his  class-mate, 
the  world-renowned  Channing,  became  the  earnest  advocate 
of  an  opposing  system. 

If  the  principles  of  honor  and  of  right  which  I  have  stated 
are  true,  then,  however  much  we  may  regret  the  results 
to  which  these  and  other  eminent  men  came,  it  is  both  dis 
ingenuous  and  uncandid  to  deny  that,  so  far  as  they  followed 
them,  they  were  actuated  by  noble  and  sublime  principles. 


120  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

I  am  aware  that,  in  view  of  the  results  to  which  they 
came,  it  has  happened  that,  by  a  natural  association,  any 
application  of  the  principles  themselves,  in  these  relations, 
is  very  often  regarded  with  a  kind  of  fear  and  distrust. 
Whenever  any  one  begins  to  speak  of  forming  a  judgment 
on  the  doctrine  of  imputation  and  human  depravity  by 
referring  to  the  principles  of  honor  and  right  as  they  apply 
to  God,  fears  are  entertained,  at  once,  of  the  worst  results. 
They  are  warned  of  the  danger  of  such  speculations,  and 
of  our  incapacity  to  judge  of  the  divine  dispensations,  and 
of  the  necessity  of  confiding  in  the  statements  of  God. 

These  cautions,  together  with  education  and  Christian 
consciousness,  are  sufficient  to  restrain  many  minds.  But 
many  are  so  deeply  affected  by  a  conviction  of  the  truth 
and  importance  of  the  principles  in  question,  and  are  so 
much  agitated  by  the  seeming  conflict  of  the  common  views 
of  depravity  with  them,  that  they  cannot  rest.  The  char 
acter  of  God  is  the  sun  of  the  moral  world.  To  them 
these  views  seem  fatally  to  darken  it,  and  to  fill  the 
universe  with  gloom.  This  they  cannot  endure.  At 
length,  after  many  painful  struggles,  they  first  reject  the 
facts  concerning  human  depravity  and  ruin,  from  which 
such  results  seem  to  flow ;  and,  finally,  the  whole  system 
which  grows  out  of  them.  Such  appears  to  have  been  the 
case  with  Dr.  Channing,  who,  at  first,  was  taught  to  believe 
and  seemed  to  hold  the  usual  doctrine  of  human  depravity. 
Step  by  step  he  proceeded,  till  he  had  renounced  not  merely 
human  depravity,  but  the  other  doctrines  connected  with  it, 
including  that  of  evil  spirits.  But,  even  in  those  who  thus 
reject  the  whole  system,  there  is  no  point  on  which  they  feel 
so  deeply  as  on  the  conflict  of  the  common  doctrine  of 
depravity  with  the  principles  of  honor  and  right  in  the 
divine  Being.  Their  attention  has  been  turned  strongly  and 


THE    SECOND    EXPERIENCE.  121 

predominantly  to  these  principles.  Their  deepest  experi 
ence  has  arisen  from  a  contemplation  of  them,  and  from  an 
earnest  desire  and  firm  purpose  to  repudiate  all  alleged 
facts  that  represent  the  supreme  Ruler  of  the  universe  as 
dishonorable  and  unjust. 

Almost  the  entire  force  of  the  argument  of  Dr.  Ware 
against  Dr.  Woods  depends  upon  his  appeal  to  the  moral 
attributes  of  God  as  inconsistent  with  the  Calvinistic  doc 
trine  of  imputation,  original  sin,  and  total  depravity. 

Moreover,  the  strength  of  the  feelings  of  Unitarians 
against  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  seems  to  be  chiefly  owing 
to  its  connection  with  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  depravity. 
Accordingly,  Dr.  Channing  says,  "We  find  Trinitarianism 
connecting  itself  with  a  scheme  of  administration  exceed 
ingly  derogatory  to  the  divine  character.  It  teaches  that 
the  infinite  Father  saw  fit  to  put  into  the  hands  of  our  first 
parents  the  character  and  condition  of  their  whole  progeny  ; 
and  that  through  one  act  of  disobedience  the  whole  race 
bring  with  them  into  being  a  corrupt  nature,  or  are  born 
depraved.  It  teaches  that  the  offences  of  a  short  life, 
though  begun  and  spent  under  this  disastrous  influence, 
merit  endless  punishment;  and  that  God's  law  threatens  this 
infinite  penalty ;  and  that  man  is  thus  burdened  with  a  guilt 
which  no  sufferings  of  the  created  universe  can  expiate, 
which  nothing  but  the  sufferings  of  an  infinite  being  can 
purge  away.  In  this  condition  of  human  nature  Trin- 
ilarianism  finds  a  sphere  of  action  for  its  different 
persons." 

Notice,  now,  the  depth  of  emotion  which  is  caused  by  the 
conviction  that  for  God  to  deal  thus  with  his  creatures  is 
dishonorable  and  unjust.  He  proceeds  to  say,  of  such 
views,  that  they  look  upon  them  with  "  horror  and  grief."' 
"  They  take  from  us  our  Father  in  heaven,  and  substitute  a 
11 


122  CONFLICT    OF  AGES. 

stern  and  unjust  Lord.  Our  filial  love  and  reverence  rise 
up  against  them.  We  say  to  the  Trinitarian,  touch  any 
thing  but  the  perfections  of  God.  Cast  no  stain  on  that 
spotless  purity  and  loveliness.  We  can  endure  any  errors 
but  those  which  subvert  or  unsettle  the  conviction  of  God's 
paternal  goodness.  Urge  not  upon  us  a  system  which 
makes  existence  a  curse,  and  wraps  the  universe  in  gloom." 

Let  no  one  suppose  that  there  is  any  affectation  of  feeling 
here.  It  is  a  true  and  genuine  experience  of  a  mind  highly 
endowed  with  the  noblest  sensibilities  of  our  nature. 
Beyond  all  doubt,  his  feelings  were  sincere,  honorable  and 
deep. 

Nor  were  these  words  the  sudden  result  of  oratorical 
excitement  and  enthusiasm;  although  a  part  of  that  elo 
quent  discourse  which  fully  opened  the  great  controversy. 
We  find  the  same  views  in  a  private  letter,  dated  Boston. 
December  29,  1812: 

' 1 1  have  spent  this  evening  with  our  dear ,  and  she 

put  into  my  hands  your  letter  on  the  subject  of  religion,  to 
which  you  referred  in  the  last  which  I  received  from  you. 
I  read  it  with  sorrow.  I  saw  that  your  mind  was  yielding 
to  impressions  which  I  trusted  you  would  repel  with  instinct 
ive  horror.  I  know  that  Calvinism  is  embraced  by  many 
excellent  people,  but  I  know  that  on  some  minds  it  has  the 
most  mournful  effects ;  that  it  spreads  over  them  an  impene 
trable  gloom,  that  it  generates  a  spirit  of  bondage  and  fear, 
that  it  chills  the  best  affections,  that  it  represses  virtuous 
effort,  that  it  sometimes  shakes  the  throne  of  reason.  On 
susceptible  minds  the  influence  of  the  system  is  always  to 
be  dreaded.  If  it  be  believed,  I  think  there  is  ground  for 
a  despondence  bordering  on  insanity.  If  I,  and  my  beloved 
friends,  and  my  whole  race,  have  come  from  the  hands  of 
our  Creator  wholly  depraved,  irresistibly  propense  to  al! 


THE   SECOND    EXPERIENCE.  123 

evil,  and  averse  to  all  good, —  if  only  a  portion  are  chosen 
to  escape  from  this  miserable  state,  and  if  the  rest  are  to  be 
consigned  by  the  Being  who  gave  us  our  depraved  and 
wretched  nature  to  endless  torments  in  inextinguishable 
flames, —  then  I  do  think  that  nothing  remains  but  to  mourn 
in  anguish  of  hearty  then  existence  is  a  curse,  and  the 
Creator  is 

"  0,  my  merciful  Father  !  I  cannot  speak  of  thee  in  the 
language  which  this  system  would  suggest.  No  !  thou  hast 
been  too  kind  to  me  to  deserve  this  reproach  from  my  lips. 
Thou  hast  created  me  to  be  happy ;  thou  callest  me  to 
virtue  and  piety,  because  in  these  consists  my  felicity  ;  and 
thou  wilt  demand  nothing  from  me  but  what  thou  givest 
me  ability  to  perform."  (Channing's  Memoirs,  vol.  I.  p. 
353.) 

It  is  true  that  the  Reformers  do  not  teach  that  God 
directly  creates  in  man  a  sinful  nature;  but  they  do  teach 
that,  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam,  he  creates  the  soul 
without  original  righteousness,  withholds  from  it  divine 
influences,  places  it  in  a  body  and  in  a  world  of  temptation, 
so  that  it  inevitably  becomes  corrupt  before  action,  and, 
being  propense  to  all  evil,  and  averse  to  all  good,  is  developed 
in  nothing  but  absolute  and  entire  depravity.  Do  not 
such  doctrines  as  these  fully  justify  the  feelings  of  Dr. 
C  banning  ? 

The  principles  of  Turretin,  of  Watts,  of  Wesley,  of  the 
Princeton  divines,  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  and  of  the 
Reformers,  as  to  the  claims  of  new-created  minds  on  God, 
'will  abundantly  justify  such  feelings,  unless  God  can  be 
released  from  those  claims  by  imputing  to  men  a  sin  which 
was  committed  by  another  long  before  they  were  created ; 
and  shall  we  wonder  that  Channing  was  not  satisfied  or 
relieved  by  such  a  defence  ?  Plainly,  then,  the  system  had 


124  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

been  so  adjusted  as  to  bring  into  collision  the  real  facts  as 
to  human  depravity,  and  the  principles  of  honor  and  right  • 
and  he  clung  to  the  principles,  and,  seeing  no  way  to  recon 
cile  them  with  the  facts,  he  rejected  the  facts. 

This  was,  indeed,  a  calamitous  result,  but  it  sprung  from 
the  action  of  some  of  the  noblest  principles  of  our  nature. 
Nor  on  the  great  scale  will  it  be  in  vain.  The  existence  of 
the  Unitarian  body  is  a  providential  protest  in  favor  of  the 
great  principles  of  honor  and  of  right. 

It  was  not  the  purpose  of  Dr.  Channing  to  color  or  ex 
aggerate  the  opinions  of  Trinitarians  in  the  representation 
which  we  have  quoted,  nor,  in  ray  judgment,  has  he  done 
it.  The  statements  of  the  creeds  of  the  Reformation  are 
stronger  and  more  deeply  colored  than  his.  In  another 
place  he  refers  to  the  fact  that  later  representations  are 
somewhat  softened ;  but  he  is  not  even  so  satisfied  with 
them. 

11  This  system,  indeed,  (he  remarks)  takes  various  shapes, 
but  in  all  it  casts  dishonor  on  the  Creator.  According 
to  its  old  and  genuine  form,  it  teaches  that  God  brings 
us  into  life  wholly  depraved,  so  that  under  the  innocent 
features  of  childhood  is  hidden  a  nature  averse  to  all  good, 
and  prepense  to  all  evil  —  a  nature  which  exposes  us  to 
God's  displeasure  and  wrath,  even  before  we  have  acquired 
power  to  understand  our  duties,  or  to  reflect  upon  our 
actions.  According  to  a  more  modern  exposition,  it  teaches 
that  we  came  from  the  hands  of  our  Maker  with  such  a  con 
stitution,  and  are  placed  under  such  influences  and  circum 
stances,  a,s  to  render  certain  and  infallible  the  total  depravity 
of  every  human  being  from  the  first  moment  of  his  moral 
agency  ;  and  it  also  teaches  that  the  offence  of  the  child 
who  brings  into  life  this  ceaseless  tendency  to  unmingled 
crime  exposes  him  to  the  sentence  of  everlasting  damna- 


THE   SECOND    EXPERIENCE.  125 

tion.  Now,  according  to  the  plainest  principles  of  morality, 
we  maintain  that  a  natural  constitution  of  the  mind  un 
failingly  disposing  it  to  evil,  and  to  evil  alone,  would  absolve 
it  from  guilt ;  that  to  give  existence  under  this  condition 
would  argue  unspeakable  cruelty ;  and  that  to  punish  the 
sin  of  this  unhappily  constituted  child  with  endless  ruin 
would  be  a  wrong  unparalleled  by  the  most  merciless 
despotism."  (l.  543.) 

This  statement,  too,  is  fully  justified  by  all  the  orthodox 
authorities  to  whom  I  have  referred,  unless  God  can  be 
absolved  from  the  claims  of  honor  and  right,  by  imputing  to 
millions  of  new-created  minds  a  sin  which  they  never  com 
mitted,  and  then  inflicting  on  them,  by  way  of  punishment, 
a  corrupted  moral  constitution,  certain  to  plunge  them  into 
sin  and  misery. 

It  is  apparent  that  the  force  of  these  statements  of  Dr. 
Channing  depends  upon  the  assumption  of  our  power  and 
duty  to  test  any  alleged  facts  by  the  intuitive  principles  of 
honor  and  right,  and  that  these  principles  are  invested  by 
God  with  just  and  supreme  authority.  But,  not  to  leave  an 
assumption  so  fundamental  unsustained,  in  his  piece  entitled 
"Moral  argument  against  Calvinism,"  he  formally  inves 
tigates  the  subject.  The  statement  of  Calvinism  which  he 
there  gives  is  taken  substantially  from  the  Westminster 
divines,  and  is  not  exaggerated. 

"  Calvinism  teaches  that,  in  consequence  of  Adam's  sin, 
in  eating  the  forbidden  fruit,  God  brings  into  life  all  his 
posterity  with  a  nature  wholly  corrupt,  so  that  they  are 
utterly  indisposed,  disabled  and  made  opposite  to  all  that  is 
spiritually  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil,  and  that 
continually.  It  teaches  that  all  mankind,  having  fallen  in 
Adam,  are  under  God's  wrath  and  curse,  and  so  made  liable 
to  all  miseries  in  this  life,  to  death  itself,  and  to  the  pains  of 
11* 


126  CONFLICT    OF    AGES. 

hell  forever."  In  the  light  of  this  doctrine  he  presents; 
also,  both  here  and  elsewhere,  the  related  doctrines  of  pre 
destination,  election,  reprobation,  and  endless  punishment. 
Against  this  doctrine,  in  such  relations,  he  arrays  the  argu 
ment  "that  a  doctrine  which  contradicts  our  best  ideas  of 
goodness  and  justice  cannot  come  from  the  just  and  good 
God,  or  be  a  true  representation  of  his  character." 

In  reply  to  the  allegation  that  our  capacities  are  limited, 
and  we,  therefore,  incompetent  to  judge,  he  admits  the 
limitations  of  the  human  mind,  but  denies  that  on  this 
account  we  are  to  distrust  or  call  in  question  those  moral 
intuitions  which  God  created  it  necessarily  to  form.  To 
confide  in  these,  he  asserts,  is  to  confide  in  God,  not  to  dis 
honor  Him.  We  cannot  reason,  if  we  distrust  our  primitive 
and  necessary  laws  of  belief.  Nor  can  we  judge  in  morals, 
if  we  distrust  our  necessary  moral  intuitions.  Herein  he 
exactly  agrees  with  Dr.  Alexander.  He  proceeds  to  say 
that  there  is  indeed  much  that  we  do  not  now  know,  and 
shall  know  hereafter.  Nevertheless,  "no  extent  of  obser 
vation  can  unsettle  those  primary  and  fundamental  prin 
ciples  of  moral  truth  which  we  derive  from  our  highest 
faculties  operating  in  the  relations  in  which  God  has  fixed 
us." 

"  God,  in  giving  us  conscience,  has  implanted  a  principle 
within  us  which  forbids  us  to  prostrate  ourselves  before  mere 
power,  or  to  offer  praise  where  we  do  not  discover  worth. 
—  a  principle  which  challenges  our  supreme  homage  for 
supreme  goodness,  and  which  absolves  us  from  guilt  when 
we  abhor  a  severe  and  unjust  administration.  Our  Creator 
has  consequently  waived  his  own  claims  to  our  veneration 
and  obedience  any  further  than  he  discovers  himself  to  us 
in  characters  of  benevolence,  equity,  and  righteousness. 
He  rests  his  authority  on  the  perfect  coincidence  of  his  will 


THE    SECOND    EXPERIENCE.  127 

and  government  with  those  great  fundamental  principles  of 
morality  written  in  our  souls." 

This  conclusive  argument  is  conducted  with  great  elo 
quence  and  ability  on  the  ground  of  natural  reason,  without 
reference  to  the  Scriptures.  The  result  of  it,  as  applied  to 
Christianity,  is  thus  stated  :  "  We  know  that  this  reasoning 
will  be  met  by  the  question,  What,  then,  becomes  of 
Christianity  ?  for  this  religion  plainly  teaches  the  doctrines 
you  have  condemned.  Our  answer  is  ready, —  Christianity 
contains  no  such  doctrines." 

Thus,  then,  the.  principles  of  honor  and  right  have 
formed  around  themselves  a  party,  and,  being  carried  logic 
ally  out  to  their  full  results,  have  destroyed  all  belief  of 
any  radical  view  of  the  facts  in  which  the  ruin  of  man 
consists. 

Let  no  man  despise  this  argument,  or  think  fairly  to 
meet  it  by  alleging  that  human  pride,  or  carnal  reason,  or 
hatred  to  the  truth,  is  its  moving  power.  It  is  not  so.  Its 
moving  power  is  to  be  found  in  those  great  principles  of 
honor  and  right  which  are  a  part  of  that  natural  law  of 
God  which  he  has  inscribed  on  the  soul  of  man,  and  which 
is  rightfully  invested  with  his  own  supreme  authority. 

Moreover,  as  an  argument  it  is  adapted  to  operate  with  im 
mense  power  on  a  rational  mind  ;  and,  unless  some  different 
adjustment  of  the  system  can  be  made*  it  is  unanswerable, 
and  logically  fatal  to  the  scheme  ;  nor  will  it  ever  be  pos 
sible  to  prevent  a  large  class  of  minds  from  feeling  its  power 
and  yielding  to  its  influence.  It  has  in  it  a  principle  of 
vitality  which  cannot  be  destroyed.  Unless  it  is  recognized, 
and  the  system  so  stated  as  to  harmonize  with  it,  it  will 
surely  cause  eternal  conflict  and  division.  The  radical  doc 
trine  of  depravity  will  still  live  ;  for  it  is  true,  and  cannot 
die.  But  it  is  impossible  that  the  human  mind,  especiallj 


128  CONFLICT    OF  AGES. 

after  it  has  been  so  educated  and  elevated  as  to  feel  the 
generous  and  honorable  spirit  of  Christianity,  should  not 
respond  to  such  an  appeal. 

How,  then,  has  this  argument  been  met?  Attempts 
have  been  made  to  meet  it  in  two  ways.  Some  retain  the 
facts  unmodified,  and  resort  to  faith  and  mystery.  Others 
modify  the  statement  of  facts,  in  order  to  remove  the 
alleged  discord  between  them  and  the  principles  of  honor 
and  right.  I  shall  consider  these  modifications  in  a  sub 
sequent  experience  giving  rise  to  the  New  School  theology. 
At  present  it  is  sufficient  to  consider  the  course  of  those 
who  do  not  attempt  to  modify  the  facts.  As  we  have  seen, 
they  concede  that  their  equity  and  honor  cannot  be  shown, 
according  to  any  known  principles  of  the  human  mind. 
Accordingly,  they  take  refuge  in  faith  and  mystery.  They 
deprecate  all  attempts  to  compare  the  facts  in  question  with 
the  principles  of  honor  and  right,  as  a  kind  of  sceptical 
rationalism.  They  deny  that  we  have  any  right  to  subject 
these  doctrines  to  the  scrutiny  of  reason.  They  declare 
that  such  a  process  is  sacrilegious,  and  leads  to  Pelagianism, 
Unitarianism,  and  Infidelity.  Indeed,  the  ground  assumed 
often  painfully  recalls  to  our  memory  the  sneer  of  Hume, 
that  the  friends  of  Christianity  are  very  indiscreet  in  ex 
posing  it  to  the  scrutiny  of  reason,  a  test  which  it  is  by  no 
means  able  to  endure.  We  know,  indeed,  that  there  are 
facts  which  are  to  be  taken  solely  on  divine  authority.  But 
if  any  statement,  designed  as  the  basis  of  conviction  of 
sin  and  repentance,  is  palpably  at  war  with  natural  right,  it  is 
not  merely  profitless  to  resort  to  the  plea  of  mystery  and  faith, 
but.  for  many  minds,  it  is  dangerous.  When  they  hear 
that  God  regards  as  ours  an  act  which  was  confessedly  not 
ours,  and  punishes  us  for  it  by  a  penalty  great  beyond  con 
ception,  rejecting  us  from  his  fellowship,  and  giving  us  a 


THE    SECOND    KXPEill  EXl  E.  129 

nature  depraved  before  knowledge  or  choice,  they  find  nc 
relief  in  the  statement  of  Professor  Hodge,  that  Christian 
ity  is  "  not  a  system  of  common  sense,  but  of  profound  and 
awful  mystery."  After  Dr.  Woods  has  conceded  that  such 
facts  are  contrary  to  the  moral  convictions  of  our  minds, 
and  cannot  be  justified  on  any  known  principles,  it  is  no 
relief  to  be  told  that  the  whole  subject  is  a  mystery,  and 
that  it  is  our  duty  to  believe  that  all  is  right  from  a  regard 
to  the  veracity  and  rectitude  of  God.  There  are  limits  to 
the  duty  of  faith  in  alleged  mysteries.  If  there  were  not, 
there  could  be  no  defence  against  absurdities  the  most  gross, 
promulgated  under  the  cover  of  the  Bible.  The  advocates 
of  Transubstantiation  take  refuge  behind  the  shield  of  mys 
tery;  but  all  Protestants  agree  in  the  decision  that  a  dogma 
which  does  violence  to  the  intuitive  convictions  of  the 
human  mind,  through  the  senses,  shall  not  be  sheltered  by 
the  plea  of  mystery  and  faith.  So  there  are  certain  first 
truths  on  which  all  reasoning  rests.  Without  them  we  can 
not  evince  the  being  of  a  God,  or  establish  the  divine  origin 
or  authority  of  the  Bible.  The  intuitive  convictions  of 
the  human  mind  as  to  honor  and  right  are  of  no  less 
authority.  Without  them  we  could  form  no  idea  of  the 
moral  character  of  God.  If  any  statements  are  directly  at 
war  with  these,  the  resort  to  mystery  and  faith  in  their 
defence  is  not  legitimate.  That  millions  of  non-existent 
beings  should  be  considered  as  performing  Adam's  act, 
and  on  this  ground  be  punished  for  it,  before  they  have 
known  or  done  anything,  or  that  any  created  being  should 
deserve  punishment  for  a  nature  existing  in  him  anterior  to 
any  knowledge,  will,  or  act  of  his  own,  will  ever  and 
universally  be  regarded  as  at  war  with  the  divinely  inspired 
principles  of  honor  and  right,  by  all  who  are  left  to  their 
natural  and  spontaneous  convictions.  The  idea  of  an 


130  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

original  constitution  corrupted,  and  sure  to  result  in  sin, 
will  no  less  earnestly  be  rejected.  Nothing  but  a  sup 
posed  necessity  of  the  sternest  kind  will  ever  lead  any  one 
to  disregard  such  first  truths,  and  to  take  refuge  under 
mystery. 


CHAPTER    VII. 

THE    REACTION. — TESTIMONY   OF    DR.    CHANNING 
AND    OTHERS. — OBVIOUS    FACTS. 

SUCH  are  the  elements  of  strength  in  this  scheme  of  doc 
trine  ;  and,  certainly,  as  the  system  is  now  adjusted,  they 
are  irresistible  in  a  logical  encounter  with  the  opposing 
position.  Why,  then,  does  not  this  scheme  prevail,  and 
carry  with  it  the  whole  Christian  community?  That  it 
does  not  do  this,  that  it  never  has  done  it,  is  plain.  Why 
is  it  so  ? 

The  reason  is  one  similar  to  that  mentioned  in  the  case  of 
Old  School  theology ;  it  is.  that  it  meets  everywhere  a 
powerful  reaction.  This  reaction  arises  from  facts,  from 
Scripture,  and  from  Christian  consciousness. 

The  reaction  of  facts  is  clear  and  decided.  Recall  the 
statements  made  by  leading  Unitarian  divines  as  to  the  sin- 
fulness  of  man  and  the  history  of  this  world.  What  can  be 
more  dark  than  the  views  given  by  Professor  Norton  ?  Dr. 
Dewey  confesses  that  the  extent  of  human  depravity  "is  a 
oroblem  that  he  cannot  solve,  and  that  there  are  shadows 
-ipon  the  world  that  we  cannot  penetrate,  — masses  of  sin  and 
misery  that  overwhelm  us  with  wonder  and  awe."  Let  any 
(nan  study  the  interior  history  of  governments  in  all  ages ; 
)f  war,  of  slavery  and  the  slave-trade  ;  of  idolatry ;  of  all 
pursuits  in  which  the  main-spring  has  been  the  love  of 
money ;  of  morals,  not  only  in  the  pagan,  but  also  in  the 


132  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

Christian  world  ;  of  sensualism  and  licentiousness. —  and  he 
will  be  obliged  to  say,  with  Dr.  Dewey,  "  We  believe  that 
the  world  now,  taken  in  the  mass,  is  a  very,  a  very  bad 
world ;  that  the  sinfulness  of  the  world  is  dreadful  and  hor 
rible  to  consider ;  that  the  nations  ought  to  be  covered  with 
sackcloth  and  mourning  for  it ;  that  they  are  filled  with 
misery  by  it.  Why,  can  any  man  look  abroad  upon  the 
countless  miseries  inflicted  by  selfishness,  dishonesty,  slan 
der,  strife,  war ;  upon  the  boundless  woes  of  intemperance, 
libertinism,  gambling,  crime ;  —  can  any  man  look  upon  all 
this,  with  the  thousand  minor  diversities  and  shadings  of 
guilt  and  guilty  sorrow,  and  feel  that  he  could  write  any 
less  dreadful  sentence  against  the  world  than  Paul  has  writ 
ten?  Not  believe  in  human  depravity, —  great,  general, 
dreadful  depravity  !  Why,  a  man  must  be  a  fool,  nay,  a 
stock  or  a  stone,  not  to  believe  in  it !  He  has  no  eyes,  he 
has  no  senses,  he  has  no  perceptions,  if  he  refuses  to  believe 
in  it !  " 

Moreover,  we  find  in  the  recorded  experience  of  Dr. 
Channing  himself  that,  with  all  his  efforts  to  infuse  into 
men  elevated  and  honorable  convictions  of  their  own  nature, 
and  to  arouse  them  to  correspondent  action,  he  found  a 
general,  steady  and  powerful  indisposition  to  respond  to  the 
appeal. 

Under  the  date  of  November,  1833,  he  has  given  us  an 
interesting  discussion  of  the  spirit  of  society  in  this  world. 
He  develops  truly  and  eloquently  the  great  law  of  love  to 
God  and  to  man,  and  then  thus  proceeds : 

' '  Need  I  ask  you  whether  a  love  thus  grounded  and 
nourished  is  the  spirit  of  society  ?  Is  it  the  habit  of  society 
to  meditate  on  the  great  purposes  for  which  each  human 
being  was  framed?  Has  society  yet  learned  man's  relation 
to  God,  his  powers,  his  perils,  his  immortality  ?  Are  these 


THE    REACTION.  133 

the  thoughts  which  circulate  in  conversation,  these  the  con 
victions  which  are  brought  home  to  you  in  your  ordinary 
intercourse  ?  Need  I  tell  you  how  blind  the  multitude  yet 
are  to  what  is  nearest  them  and  concerns  them  most  deeply, 
to  their  own  nature,— how  they  overlook  the  spiritual  in 
man, —  how  they  stop  at  the  outward  and  accidental, —  how 
few  penetrate  to  the  soul,  and  discern  in  that  responsible, 
immortal  being,  an  object  for  unbounded  solicitude  and 
love  7  The  multitude  are  living  an  outward  life,  discerning 
little  but  what  meets  the  eye.  valuing  little  but  what  can  be 
weighed  or  measured  by  the  senses,  estimating  one  another 
by  outward  success,  conflicting  or  cooperating  with  one 
another  for  outward  interests.  The  consciousness  of  what 
is  inward,  and  spiritual,  and  immortal, —  how  faintly  does  it 
stir  in  the  multitude  !  Man's  solemn,  infinite  connections 
with  God  and  eternity  are  unacknowledged  or  forgotten ; 
and  so  little  are  they  comprehended,  that,  when  urged  on 
the  conscience  as  realities,  as  motives  to  action  and  as  found 
ations  of  love,  they  are  dismissed  as  too  unsubstantial  or 
refined  to  exert  a  serious  influence  on  life.  Thus  the  spirit 
of  society  is  virtually  hostile  to  tfrose  great  truths  in  regard 
to  human  nature  on  which  Christian  love  is  built,  and  with 
out  which  we  cannot  steadfastly  and  disinterestedly  bind 
ourselves  to  our  race." 

How  far  does  this  differ  from  the  orthodox  view  of  such 
scriptural  statements  as  these,  that  men,  until  regenerated, 
are  "without  God  in  the  world,"  and  act  under  the  influ 
ence  of  "the  carnal  mind,  which  is  enmity  against  God, 
because  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God  "  1 

Again  ;  after  unfolding  the  demands  of  the  law,  as  to 
universal,  all-embracing  love  of  man,  independently  of 
wealth,  social  position,  rank  or  birth,  he  thus  proceeds : 

"  Thus  universal,  all-comprehending,  is  the  love  which 
12 


134  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

springs  from  just  views  of  man's  nature  and  relation  to  God. 
And  is  this  the  spirit  of  society  ?  Does  society  breathe  and 
nurture  this,  or  does  it  inculcate  narrowness,  exclusiveness, 
and  indifference  towards  the  great  mass  of  mankind  ?  Do 
we  see  in  the  world  a  prevalent  respect  for  what  all  human 
beings  partake  ?  On  the  contrary,  do  not  men  attach  them 
selves  to  what  is  peculiar,  to  what  distinguishes  one  man 
from  another,  and  especially  to  outward  distinction ;  and  is 
there  not  a  tendency  to  overlook,  as  of  little  value,  those 
who  in  these  respects  are  depressed  ?  Do  they  not  worship 
the  accidents,  adventitious,  unessential  circumstances,  of  the 
human  being, —  birth,  outward  appearance,  wealth,  manner, 
rank,  show, —  and  ground  on  these  a  consciousness  of  a 
superiority  which  divides  them  from  others  ?  Can  we  say 
of  that  distinction,  which  is  alone  important  in  the  sight  of 
God,  which  is  confined  to  no  condition,  which  is  to  outlive 
all  the  inequalities  of  life,  and  which,  far  from  separating, 
binds  those  who  possess  it  more  and  more  to  their  race, —  I 
mean  moral  and  religious  worth, —  can  we  say  of  this,  that 
it  is  the  object  of  general  homage,  before  whose  commanding 
presence  all  lower  differences  among  men  are  abased?  The 
influence  of  outward  condition  in  attracting  or  repelling 
men's  sympathies  and  interest  is  one  of  the  most  striking 
features  of  modern  society,  and  gives  mournful  proof  of  the 
faint  hold  which  Christianity  has  as  yet  gained  over  the 
hearts  and  minds  of  men.  *  *  *  *  Who  can  deny 
that,  on  the  whole,  the  spirit  of  society  is  adverse  to  this 
enlarged,  all-embracing  spirit  of  Christ  ?*-*#*# 
"  Such  is  the  spirit  of  society.  Christianity  teaches  us 
to  feel  ourselves  members  of  the  whole  human  family; 
society,  to  make  or  keep  ourselves  members  of  some  favored 
caste.  Christianity  calls  us  to  unite  ourselves  with  others  ; 
society,  to  separate  ourselves  from  them.  Christianity 


THE    REACTION.  135 

teaches  us  to  raise  others ;  society,  to  rise  above  them. 
Christianity  calls  us  to  narrow  the  space  between  ourselves 
and  our  inferiors,  by  communicating  to  them,  as  we  have 
ability,  what  is  most  valuable  in  our  own  minds ;  society 
tells  us  to  leave  them  to  their  degradation.  Christianity 
summons  us  to  employ  superior  ability,  if  such  we  have,  as 
a  means  of  wider  and  more  beneficent  action  on  the  world ; 
society  suggests  that  these  are  a  means  of  personal  eleva 
tion.  Christianity  teaches  us  that  what  is  peculiar  in  our 
lot  or  our  acquisitions  is  of  little  worth,  in  comparison  with 
what  we  possess  in  common  with  our  race ;  society  teaches 
us  to  cling  to  what  is  peculiar,  as  our  highest  honor  and 
most  precious  possession.  Fraternal  union,  sympathy,  aid, 
is  the  spirit  of  Christianity ;  exclusiveness  is  the  spirit  of 
the  world.  And  this  spirit  is  not  confined  to  what  is  called 
the  highest  class.  It  burns,  perhaps,  more  intensely  in 
those  who  are  seeking  than  in  those  who  occupy  the  emi 
nences  of  social  life.  It  is  a  disposition  to  undervalue  those 
\vho  want  what  we  possess,  to  narrow  our  sympathies  to  one 
or  another  class,  to  forget  the  great  bond  of  humanity. 
This  spirit  of  exclusiveness  triumphs  over  the  spirit  of 
Christianity,  and,  through  its  prevalence,  the  great  work 
given  to  every  human  being,  which  is  to  improve  his  less 
favored  fellow-being,  is  slighted.  The  sublime  sphere  of 
usefulness  is  little  occupied.  A  spirit  of  rivalry,  jealousy, 
envy,  selfish  competition,  supplants  the  spirit  of  mutual 
interest,  the  respect,  support  and  aid,  by  which  Christianity 
proposes  to  knit  mankind  into  a  universal  brotherhood," 

If  the  essence  and  root  of  sin  is  selfishness,  as  opposed 
to  the  law  of  love,  does  not  this  state  of  things  seem  to 
justify  the  conclusion  that  men  must  have  in  them  powerful 
native  tendencies  to  such  deep  depravity  ?  Is  this  like  the 


186  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

action  of  a  race  whose  original  constitutions,  as  they  enter 
upon  this  life,  are  pure  and  uncorrupted  ? 

At  first,  he  was  full  of  hope  as  to  the  power  of  the  Unita 
rian  movement  to  renovate  society.  But  the  stern  teach 
ings  of  experience  at  last  taught  him  that  even  to  the  call 
of  that  system  there  was  not  that  readiness  to  respond  that 
ought  to  be  expected  from  a  race  of  men  naturally  tending 
to  all  that  is  good  and  noble.  In  a  letter  to  Blanco  White, 
dated  Sept.  18,  1839,  he  says : 

'•  I  would  that  I  could  look  to  Unitarianism  with  more 
hope.  But  this  system  was,  at  its  recent  revival,  a  protest 
of  the  understanding  against  absurd  dogmas,  rather  than 
the  work  of  deep  religious  principle,  and  was  early  para 
lyzed  by  the  mixture  of  a  material  philosophy,  and  fell  too 
much  into  the  hands  of  scholars  and  political  reformers ;  and 
the  consequence  is  a  want  of  vitality  and  force,  which  gives 
us  little  hope  of  its  accomplishing  much  under  its  present 
auspices,  or  in  its  present  form.  When  I  tell  you  that  no 
sect  in  this  country  has  taken  less  interest  in  the  slavery 
question,  or  is  more  inclined  to  conservatism,  than  our  body, 
you  will  judge  what  may  be  expected  from  it.  Whence  is 
salvation  to  come?  This  is  the  question  which  springs  up 
in  my  mind  continually.  Is  the  world  to  receive  new 
impulse  from  individual  reformers,  or  from  new  organiza 
tions  I  Or  is  the  work  to  go  on  by  a  more  silent,  unorgan 
ized  action  of  thought  and  great  principles  in  the  mass '?  Or 
are  great  convulsions,  breaking  up  the  present  order  of 
things,  as  in  the  fall  of  the  Roman  empire,  needed  to  the 
introduction  of  a  reform  worthy  of  the  name '?  Sometimes 
I  fear  the  last,  so  rooted  seem  the  corruptions  of  the  church 
and  society.  But  I  live  in  hope  of  milder  processes." 

To  me,  the  solution  of  all  this  seems  to  be  clear ;  —  sin 
cere,  earnest  and  indefatigable,  as  were  the  efforts  of  Dr. 


THE    REACTION.  137 

Charming,  the  force  of  the  radical  and  originating  causes  of 
such  wide-spread  actual  human  depravity  was  deeper  and 
greater  than  his  system  would  allow  him  to  understand  and 
consistently  to  believe,  and  therefore  it  steadily  defied  and 
resisted  his  most  earnest  and  philanthropic  efforts. 

He  did  not,  indeed,  despair ;  but  most  of  his  hopes  lay  in 
the  uncertain  future.  In  the  year  1839,  in  the  preface  to 
the  third  Glasgow  edition  of  his  works,  he  thus  sets  forth 
his  hopes  as  a  social  reformer : 

"These  volumes  will  show  that  the  author  feels  strongly 
the  need  of  deep  social  changes,  of  a  spiritual  revolution  in 
Christendom,  of  a  new  bond  between  man  and  man,  of  a 
new  sense  of  the  relation  between  man  and  his  Creator.  At 
the  same  time,  they  will  show  his  firm  belief  that  our  pres 
ent  low  civilization,  the  central  idea  of  which  is  wealth, 
cannot  last  forever ;  that  the  mass  of  men  are  not  doomed 
hopelessly  and  irresistibly  to  the  degradation  of  mind  and 
heart  in  which  they  are  now  sunk ;  that  a  new  comprehen 
sion  of  the  end  and  dignity  of  a  human  being  is  to  remodel 
social  institutions  and  manners ;  that  in  Christianity,  and 
in  the  powers  and  principles  of  human  nature,  we  have  the 
promise  of  something  holier  and  happier  than  now  exists. 
It  is  a  privilege  to  live  in  this  faith,  and  a  privilege  to  com 
municate  it  to  others.  The  author  is  not  without  hope  that 
he  may  have  strength  for  some  more  important  labors ;  but 
if  disappointed  in  this,  he  trusts  that  these  writings,  which 
may  survive  him  a  little  time,  will  testify  to  his  sympathy 
with  his  fellow-creatures,  and  to  his  faith  in  God's  great 
purposes  towards  the  human  race." 

In  another  place  he  says,  in  the  same  year : 

"  I  live  as  did  Simeon,  in  the  hope  of  seeing  a  brighter 
day.  I  do  see  the  gleams  of  dawn,  and  that  ought  to  cheer 
me.  I  hope  nothing  from  increased  zeal  in  urging  an  imper- 


138  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

feet,  decaying  form  of  Christianity.  One  higher,  clearer 
view  of  religion  rising  on  a  single  mind  encourages  me  more 
than  the  organization  of  millions  to  repeat  what  has  been 
repeated  for  ages  with  little  effect.  The  individual  here  is 
mightier  than  the  world ;  and  I  have  the  satisfaction  of 
seeing  aspirations  after  this  purer  truth.  *  *  *  *  * 
I  believe, —  I  trust, —  that  a  better  age  of  theological  litera 
ture  is  dawning  upon  us.  The  human  mind  is  beginning  to 
tfirow  off  the  weight  of  authority  which  has  crushed  it  for 
ages ;  and,  although  its  first  strength  may  be  put  forth  in 
vehement  wrestling  with  errors,  in  the  subtilties  of  contro 
versy,  perhaps  in  rushing  from  one  to  another  extreme,  yet, 
if  left  to  the  free  use  of  its  powers,  and  to  the  quickening 
influences  which  God  is  pouring  upon  it  through  nature, 
through  events,  through  revelation,  and  through  a  more 
secret  and  inward  energy,  it  will  at  length  arrive,  in  one 
and  another  gifted  individual,  to  that  state  of  calm,  intense 
and  deep  meditation  and  feeling,  from  which  all  living  and 
life-giving  works  on  morals  and  religion  are  to  proceed. 
One  such  work  may  be  enough  to  give  a  new  aspect  to 
theology,  to  introduce  modes  of  viewing  and  studying  it  as 
superior  to  those  which  now  prevail  as  those  are  to  the 
antiquated  scholastic  subtilties  and  jargon  which  once  bore 
its  name." 

In  the  anticipations  of  such  results,  to  be  produced  by 
the  power  of  truth  and  love,  I  am  happy  to  sympathize  with 
this  distinguished  philanthropist.  But,  in  my  judgment, 
the  turning  point  of  the  whole  revolution  will  be,  so  tc 
adjust  the  system  that  the  highest  and  most  perfect  enunci 
ation  of  the  principles  of  equity  and  honor  in  God  shall  not 
hide  or  extenuate  the  reality  or  the  depth  of  the  depravity 
and  the  moral  ruin  of  man.  When  the  depth  of  the  moral 
malady  of  the  race  is  fully  understood,  and  so  set  forth  as 


THE    REACTION.  189 

to  imply  no  dishonor  in  God,  then  will  that  great  revo 
lution  be  attained  the  hope  of  which  Dr.  Channing  was 
never  willing  to  abandon,  but  to  which  he  still  clung,  in  the 
midst  of  the  severest  disappointments  and  the  most  gloomy 
prospects. 

But,  at  present,  I  am  concerned  simply  with  the  facts 
which  a  long  course  of  philanthropic  effort  compelled  Dr. 
Channing  reluctantly  to  admit. 

In  view  of  such  facts,  we  ask,  as  before,  is  it  possible  that 
a  race  of  beings  in  whom  there  is  no  native  and  inherent 
depravity,  whose  original  constitutions  are  healthy  and  well 
balanced,  and  in  whom  there  are  preponderating  tendencies 
to  good,  should  for  a  long  course  of  thousands  of  years  have 
presented  such  results  as  these  ?  It  cannot  be. 

This  view  of  the  mournful  facts  of  history  and  observa 
tion  must  naturally  prepare  the  way  for  a  more  affecting 
and  impressive  study  of  the  word  of  God.  In  that  are 
found  most  vivid  statements  of  the  original,  universal  and 
deep  depravity  of  man, —  a  depravity  so  absolute  that  men 
are  said  to  be  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,  and  by  nature  the 
children  of  wrath.  This  state  of  things  is  asserted  to  be  as 
universal  and  absolute  as  the  need  of  the  redemption  of 
Christ.  "  We  thus  judge,"  saith  the  apostle  Paul,  "  that 
>f  one  died  for  all,  then  were  all  dead ;  and  that  he  died  for 
all  that  they  who  live  should  henceforth  live  not  unto  them 
selves,  but  unto  him  who  died  for  them  and  rose  again." 
The  universal  necessity  of  a  moral  regeneration,  or  new 
creation,  is  seen  to  result  from  these  facts,  and  to  be  clearly 
stated  in  the  word  of  God. 

These  views  are  illustrated  and  confirmed  by  the  state- 
lent  of  the  experience  of  the  inspired  writers, —  an  expo- 
ience  utterly  unlike  that  of  any  other  human  writers 


140  CONFLICT    OF    AGES. 

except  such  as  have  derived  a  similar  experience  from  the 
word  of  God. 

In  addition  to  this,  it  is  a  fact  that  multitudes  in  every 
age  do  become  conscious,  in  their  own  experience,  of  a  great 
and  radical  moral  change,  which  fully  corresponds  to  these 
statements  of  the  word  of  God,  in  their  most  obvious  sense 
and  deepest  extent.  They  are  made  to  see  in  the  character 
of  God,  and  in  his  law,  the  true  standard  of  holiness  ;  they 
are  deeply  convinced  of  their  own  sinfulness  and  moral 
impotence ;  they  become  conscious  of  a  great  moral  change, 
corresponding  in  all  respects  to  that  set  forth  in  the  word 
of  God  ;  they  now  receive  a  new  and  spiritual  understand 
ing  of  that  sacred  book ;  the  new  creation  therein  revealed 
towers  upwards  like  a  mountain  towards  heaven,  radiant 
with  glory,  full  of  new  and  enrapturing  spiritual  life. 
Even  one  individual  book,  like  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians. 
seen  and  felt  in  its  spiritual  glory,  is  enough  to  satisfy  the 
soul  of  the  divine,  the  supernatural  origin  of  the  word  of 
God.  In  it  the  new-born  soul  mounts  up  as  on  the  wings 
of  an  eagle,  until  it  sits  down  with  Christ  in  heavenly 
places,  amidst  the  glories  of  heaven. 

Is  it  to  be  wondered  at  that  causes  so  powerful  as  these 
should  cause  a  constant  reaction  against  the  results  which 
by  a  strict  logic  are  made  to  flow  from  the  principles  of 
honor  and  right  by  Unitarian  divines?  In  evangelical 
conviction  of  sin,  and  regeneration,  there  is  a  living  power ; 
and  in  the  certainty  which  it  gives  of  the  deep  meaning  and 
exact  truth  of  the  Bible  on  the  subject  of  human  depravity, 
there  is  an  energy  of  resistance  to  opposite  doctrines  which 
nothing  can  overcome  or  destroy. 


CHAPTER    VIII. 

DEGRADATION     OF     FREE     AGENCY     ITSELF. 

\s 

ONE  result  of  the  Unitarian  views  is  altogether  unde 
signed,  and  was  little  foreseen  by  the  leaders  of  the  system. 
Indeed,  it  is  not  peculiar  to  their  system,  as  we  shall  show 
in  considering  some  forms  of  the  New  School  theology.  It  is 
the  virtual  degradation  of  free  agency  itself,  in  their  efforts 
to  elevate  the  existing  nature  of  man.  They  assert  that  God 
creates  men  from  age  to  age  with  such  moral  constitutions 
as  the  claims  of  equity  and  honor  demand.  But  the  his 
tory  of  this  world,  as  they  state  it,  contradicts  the  idea  that 
men  are  born  holy,  or  with  powerful  and  predominating 
tendencies  to  good.  Therefore  they  take  the  ground  of  Dr. 
Ware  :  "  Man  is  by  nature  —  by  which  is  to  be  understood 
as  he  is  born  into  the  world,  as  he  comes  from  the  hands  of 
the  Creator  —  innocent  and  pure ;  he  is  by  nature  no  more 
inclined  or  disposed  to  vice  than  to  virtue,  and  is  equally 
capable,  in  the  ordinary  use  of  his  faculties,  and  with  the 
common  assistance  afforded  him,  of  either."  Thus,  in  order 
to  account  for  the  actual  sinfulness  of  man  in  this  world, 
Unitarians  are  compelled  to  abandon  the  highest  standard 
as  to  what  is  due  from  God  to  new-created  minds.  They 
abandon  the  idea  of  minds  created  with  original  righteous 
ness,  and,  therefore,  with  strong  predominant  and  effective 
tendencies  to  good,  as  unphilosophical.  or  even  impossible. 
They  take  the  ground  that  God  has  given  to  men.  as  neces- 


142  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

sarily  limited,  ignorant,  imperfect,  new-created  beings,  all 
that  the  nature  of  free  agency  will  allow.  Thus,  Dr. 
Dewey  says  : 

"  It  is  in  the  very  nature  of  a  moral  and  imperfect  being 
to  err  ;  not  to  sin  wilfully,  malignantly, —  that  is  not  neces 
sary, —  but  to  err  through  ignorance  and  impulse,  to  fall 
into  excess  or  defect,  and  so  to  fall  into  sin.  And  it  is  in 
the  power  of  such  a  being  to  sin  intentionally.  Man  has 
done  both.  And  misery  has  followed  as  the  consequence, 
at  once,  and  corrective,  of  his  errors.  Where,  now,  is  the 
mystery  or  difficulty?  *  *  *  An  imperfect,  free 
moral  nature  is,  in  its  essential  constitution, —  is,  by  defini 
tion,  peccable ;  it  is  liable  to  err  ;  and  its  erring  is  nothing 
strange  nor  mysterious.  The  notion  of  untempted  inno 
cence  for  such  a  being  is,  I  hold,  a  dream  of  theology. 
His  very  improvement,  his  very  progress,  ever  implies 
previous  erring" 

The  essential  principle  of  this  defence  of  God,  in  view  of 
the  conceded  and  fearful  sinfulness  of  man,  is,  that  God  has 
given  to  nun  as  good  original  constitutions  as  the  nature  of 
free  agency  admits  of.  Indeed,  it  would  seem  logically  to 
result  in  the  principle  that  sinning  is  a  general  necessity  of 
all  finite  moral  beings,  as  such,  and  is  an  essential  part  of  a 
moral  education,  designed  to  result  in  stable  virtue. 

Dr.  Burnap  presents  similar  views.  He  teaches  us  that 
"  every  human  soul  comes  from  the  hand  of  God  pure,  as 
was  Adam;  without,  indeed,  any  decided  character,  but 
capable  of  virtue  and  holiness,  though  exposed  to  temptation 
and  sin."  He  explains  his  sin  by  the  fact  that  he  is  free, 
has  strong  appetites  and  impulses,  bodily  and  mental,  is 
ignorant,  is  surrounded  by  temptations,  and  yet  is  under 
law.  Thus  he  inevitably  falls  into  sin.  Then  comes  in  the 
power  of  habit,  and  the  law  of  development,  to  strengthen 


DEGRADATION    OF  FREE  AGENCY   ITSELF.  143 

and  confirm  these  evil  results.  (See  the  whole  of  Dis 
course  XXI.) 

In  another  place  he  makes  the  following  clear  and  ex 
plicit  statements  : 

u  It  is  God's  will  that  man  should  commence  his  career 
at  nothing,  without  positive  character,  though  innocent; 
without  knowledge,  without  experience:  weak,  and  subjected 
to  urgent  wants  and  strong  necessities ;  with  passions  within 
and  many  and  mighty  temptations  without.  His  ignorance 
is  liable  to  be  deceived,  his  passions  to  be  excited,  his  inter 
ests  to  be  miscalculated,  and,  of  course,  he  is  liable  to  sin. 
In  comparison  to  God,  in  his  best  estate,  he  has  the  weak 
ness  of  infancy.  Is  it  not  to  be  expected  that  a  being  thus 
endowed  and  thus  conditioned  should  sometimes  sin  ?  All 
that  can  be  expected  of  man  is  that  his  career  should  be 
progressive;  that  his  choice  should  be  fixed  on  good 
after  wavering  a  while.  Man  being  free,  the  only  way  in 
which  his  character  can  be  established  is  by  fixing  his  delib 
erate  and  habitual  choice  on  good.  Accordingly,  this  seems 
to  be  the  whole  purpose  of  the  present  life.  This  world  is 
a  state  of  discipline,  having  in  view  this  very  end, —  the 
production  in  man  of  a  holy  character." 

This  view  accounts  for  the  universal  sin  of  this  world  by 
the  necessary  nature  of  free  agency  and  of  a  state  of  proba 
tion,  as  designed  to  form  a  holy  character.  Of  course,  as 
in  a  great  majority  of  cases  there  is  an  entire  failure  to 
secure  this  result,  we  are  compelled  to  entertain  very  low 
ideas  of  the  possibilities  of  free  agency. 

The  obvious  tendency  of  these  views  is  to  degrade  the 
essential  nature  of  free  agency  itself,  and  of  the  universe  as 
based  on  it.  It  no  less  diminishes  the  guilt  and  evil  of  sin. 
Indeed,  it  approximates  very  closely  to  the  idea  of  the  # 


144  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

Hegelian  school, —  that  sin,  though  an  evil,  is  yet  a  neces 
sary  and  useful  means  of  moral  development. 

Dr.  Burnap  seems  to  have  been  aware  that  his  views 
would  appear  to  be  open  to  this  objection ;  for  he  states  it, 
and  endeavors  to  show  that  his  views  do  not  tend  to  it. 

u  To  the  doctrine  of  this  discourse  I  am  aware  that  it 
may  be  objected,  that  it  is  calculated  to  lower  the  standard 
of  the  gospel,  to  diminish  our  apprehensions  of  the  evil  of 
sin,  to  make  it  less  burdensome  to  the  conscience,  and  to  dis 
parage  the  importance  of  the  mission  of  Christ  as  a  remedy 
for  the  sinfulness  of  mankind.  Serious  and  religious  minds 
may  fear  that  it  tends  to  the  development  of  such  a  reli 
gious  philosophy  as  that  so  widely  propagated  of  late  in 
Germany  by  Hegel,  which  represents  sin  as  not  only  inci 
dent  to  human  nature,  but  one  of  the  appointed  means 
of  its  development  and  perfection ." 

In  his  reply  he  concedes  and  endeavors  to  show  that  sin 
is  not  by  any  means  so  great  an  evil  as  it  is  represented  by 
the  orthodox.  He  then  adds  :  "  Bat  it  doss  not  follow, 
because  no  sin  is  an  infinite  evil,  and  no  sin  can  merit  an 
infinite  punishment,  that  it  is  no  evil  at  all.  and  does  not 
deserve  any  punishment.  Nor  does  it  follow,  because  pun 
ishment  is  remedial  and  inflicted  for  the  purpose  of  curing 
sin,  that  it  is  as  well  to  sin  and  suffer  for  it,  as  to  keep  the 
law  of  God  and  avoid  both  the  sin  and  the  suffering."  He 
speaks  of  it,  however,  chiefly  as  an  evil  to  the  sinner,  and 
sums  up  his  views  in  the  following  brief  statement : 

''•  The  condition  of  man,  then,  here  on  earth,  as  in  a  state 
of  moral  probation,  amounts  to  this.  God  has  given  him 
two  chances  for  happiness  ;  —  one,  through  sinless  obedience ; 
the  other,  through  repentance  and  reformation, —  in  short, 
through  moral  discipline.  Human  imperfection  renders 


DEGRADATION    OF   FREE   AGENCY   ITSELF.  145 

the  first  impossible,  and  therefore  God  has  kindly  provided 
the  second." 

This  involves,  of  course,  the  doctrine  that  the  nature  of 
free  agency  is  such,  that  to  form  a  perfect  character  through 
sinless  obedience  is,  in  the  nature  of  things,  impossible.  It 
cannot  be  done  except  through  a  process  of  sinning,  and  of 
consequent  moral  discipline  and  repentance.  Certainly 
such  views,  even  if  they  differ  in  some  respects  from  those 
of  Hegel,  do,  nevertheless,  so  depress  our  ideas  of  the  evil 
of  sin,  that  men  of  deep  Christian  experience,  who  know 
its  evils  and  its  power,  will  be  likely  to  feel  that  there  is 
very  little  to  choose  between  the  two  views. 

Of  course,  there  will  be  men  of  deep  Christian  conscious 
ness  who  will  feel  that  such  views  imply  a  false  standard 
of  the  true  life  and  health  of  the  soul.  They  do  not,  in 
their  view,  probe  its  diseases  thoroughly ;  they  cannot, 
therefore,  effect  a  radical  cure.  Whenever  a  standard  is 
taken  so  low  as  to  represent  the  fearful  and  gigantic  devel 
opments  of  human  depravity  in  this  world  as  the  result  of 
human  limitation,  ignorance  and  frailty,  in  a  mind  naturally 
pure,  and  not  of  deep  innate  depravity,  the  highest  vitality 
and  power  of  religion  is  rendered  impossible.  Until  it  aims 
at  a  radical  regeneration,  it  has  no  adequate  end :  it  effects 
nothing  of  any  moment,  and,  in  the  great  conflict  with  the 
real  and  earnest  and  gigantic  depravity  of  earth,  it  will  be 
trodden  under  foot  and  despised. 

Hence,  although  such  views  are  derived  from  and  depend 
upon  the  true  and  powerful  principles  of  honor  and  right 
as  applied  to  a  misadjusted  system,  yet  the  steady  testi 
mony  of  fact,  the  Bible  and  Christian  consciousness, 
produces  a  constant  reaction,  which,  on  a  great  scale,  has 
prevailed  against  them,  and  ever  will  prevail.  Even  the 
power  of  the  most  obvious  first  truths  will  not  ever  avail 
13 


146  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

universally  to  eradicate  from  the  minds  of  men  a  belief  of 
the  great  fact  of  innate  human  depravity  in  its  most  pro 
found  and  radical  form,  and  of  its  connected  facts.  They 
are  sustained  by  independent  evidence  of  their  own  so 
strong  that  they  will  live.  But  equally  powerless  will 
argument  be  universally  to  eradicate  the  views  of  those 
who  reject  those  facts  because  so  presented  as  to  war  with 
honor  and  right.  Unless,  therefore,  in  some  way  these 
truths  shall  be  harmonized,  there  is  a  foundation  laid  for 
endless  conflict  and  division. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THIRD     EXPERIENCE;      OR,      PHILOSOPHY     OP 
ORTHODOX   UNIVERSALISM. 

WE  now  come  to  a  third  and  most  interesting  experience. 
It  is  one  which  results  from  holding  unmodified,  and  with 
full  faith  and  deep  sensibility,  both  the  most  radical  facts 
concerning  human  depravity  and  the  principles  of  honor 
and  of  right. 

Upon  a  certain  portion  of  such  minds  the  power  of  the 
principles  of  honor  and  right  is  so  great,  that,  although 
they  cannot  cease  to  believe  the  facts  as  to  human  depravity, 
yet  they  shrink  from  carrying  out  the  system  of  Chris 
tianity  to  its  full  and  scriptural  results,  and  take  refuge  in 
the  doctrine  of  universal  salvation.  It  is  well  known  that 
the  prevailing  opinion  of  the  great  body  of  evangelical 
Christians,  in  all  ages,  has  been  opposed  to  this  doctrine. 
This  has  resulted  from  a  full  conviction  that  the  testimony 
of  scripture  is  decidedly  against  it.  Yet,  so  urgent  and 
powerful  are  the  principles  of  honor  in  some  minds,  that, 
in  view  of  the  common  doctrine  concerning  the  alleged 
dealings  of  God  with  man  through  Adam,  they  have  been 
unable  to  rest  in  any  result  short  of  universal  salvation. 
But  it  is  not  till  after  many  struggles  and  much  suffering 
that  they  finally  come  to  this  conclusion.  The  experience 
of  such  has  found  an  eloquent  utterance  in  the  words  of 
the  truly  eminent  John  Foster : 


148  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

Of  the  intellectual  and  moral  eminence  of  this  distin 
guished  man  it  is  unnecessary  that  I  should  speak.  He 
occupies  an  unquestioned  place  among  the  most  powerful 
writers  of  the  English  language.  His  friend  and  biogra 
pher,  J.  E.  Ryland,  says  of  him,  "  He  had  that  intellectual 
magic  which  summons  from  all  points  of  the  compass  the 
most  sudden  and  happy  illuminations  of  thought.  Images 
arose  on  all  sides  at  the  master's  bidding  ;  nor  did  he  hesi 
tate  to  call  them  from  the  loftiest  region  or  the  lowest." 
John  Sheppard,  another  intimate  friend  and  pupil,  says  of 
him,  "  Few  spirits  can  have  passed  away  from  earth 
endowed  with  more  of  intellectual  grasp  and  penetration,  to 
meet  the  wonders  and  grandeurs  of  regions  immense  and 
untraversed;  few,  also,  I  believe,  with  a  more  profound 
persuasion  that,  as  creatures,  however  endowed,  admired  or 
dignified,  '  in  ourselves  we  are  nothing.'  '  But,  vast  as 
were  his  powers,  they  did  not  elevate  him  in  spirit  above 
the  feeblest  and  most  lowly  of  our  race.  His  feelings  ever 
tended  to  sympathy  with  the  weak  and  the  oppressed. 
Hence  his  biographer  says  of  him,  u  He  was  remarkable 
for  civility  and  kindness  to  small  tradesmen  and  work 
people  ;  he  used  to  complain  that  women  were  generally 
underpaid,  and  would  often  give  them  more  than  they 
asked.  He  abhorred  driving  a  bargain  with  poor  people. 
When  sometimes  shown  small  wares  brought  to  the  door  for 
sale,  on  being  told  the  price,  he  would  say,  '  0,  give 
them  a  few  pence  more !  See !  there 's  a  great  deal  of 
work  here  ;  it  must  have  taken  some  time  to  make.'  And 
he  would  turn  the  article  —  whatever  it  might  be  —  in  every 
direction,  and  find  out  all  the  little  ingenuities  and  orna 
ments  about  it."  These  small  facts  reveal  great  principles. 
They  give  us  an  insight  into  a  great  and  noble  spirit.  They 
reveal  a  mind  so  keenly  sensitive  to  the  principles  of  honor 


THIRD    EXPERIENCE.  149 

and  of  right  that  over  it  their  influence  must  have  been 
supreme.  They  furnish,  therefore,  the  key  to  the  ex 
perience  which  we  are  about  to  disclose  and  illustrate. 

The  occasion  on  which  Foster  expressed  his  views  was 
this  : 

In  the  year  1841  a  young  minister  wrote  to  him  a  state 
ment  of  his  inquiries  and  difficulties  on  the  subject  of  the 
eternity  of  future  punishments.  In  reply,  he  concedes  the 
almost  universal  judgment  of  divines  in  affirmation  of 
the  doctrine,  and  that  the  testimony  of  scripture  for  it  is 
"  formidably  strong."  Yet,  solely  on  the  basis  of  what  he 
calls  "the  moral  argument,"  he  rejects  the  doctrine.  On 
what,  then,  is  this  argument  based  ?  Plainly,  on  a  view  of 
the  facts  concerning  the  origin  of  man's  depravity. 

By  this  I  mean  that  the  facts  which  have  been  stated  as 
held  by  the  orthodox  concerning  the  conduct  of  God  towards 
new-created  minds,  both  with  regard  to  their  original  con 
stitutions  and  their  circumstances,  so  deeply  affected  and 
pained  his  benevolent  spirit,  that,  seeing  no  way  to  answer 
the  arguments  which  sustained  the  system  of  which  those 
facts  were  a  part,  he  sought  relief  in  the  doctrine  of  univer 
sal  salvation. 

That  this  process  was  not  a  logical  vindication  of  God,  in 
the  acts  in  question,  is  plain;  but  it  gave  at  least  this  relief, 
that  it  represented  God  as  not  adding  an  eternal  and  still 
greater  wrong  to  that  of  which  he  appeared  already  to  have 
been  guilty.  But  of  this  I  shall  speak  again.  My  present 
object  is  to  show  how  the  mind  of  Foster  sought  relief 
under  a  system  so  misadjusted  as  to  bring  the  conduct  of 
God  towards  man  into  actual  conflict  with  the  principles  of 
honor  and  right. 

In  his  reply  to  the  young  clergyman,  he  first  illustrates 
the  fearful  idea  of  eternity,  and  then  thus  proceeds  : 
13* 


150  CONFLICT  OF  AGES. 

"  Then  think  of  man, —  his  nature,  his  situation,  the  cir 
cumstances  of  his  brief  sojourn  and  trial  on  earth.  Far  be 
it  from  us  to  make  light  of  the  demerit  of  sin,  and  to 
remonstrate  with  the  supreme  Judge  against  a  severe  chas 
tisement,  of  whatever  moral  nature  we  may  regard  the  in 
fliction  to  be.  But  still,  what  is  man  ?  He  comes  into  the 
world  with  a  nature  fatally  corrupt,  and  powerfully  tend 
ing  to  actual  evil.  He  comes  among  a  crowd  of  tempt 
ations  adapted  to  his  innate  evil  propensities.  He 
grows  up  (incomparably  the  greater  proportion  of  the  race) 
in  great  ignorance  ;  his  judgment  weak,  and  under  number 
less  beguilements  to  error,  while  his  passions  arid  appetites 
are  strong ;  his  conscience  unequally  matched  against  their 
power, —  in  the  majority  of  men,  but  feebly  and  rudely 
constituted.  The  influence  of  whatever  good  instructions 
he  may  receive  is  counteracted  by  a  combination  of  oppo 
site  influences  almost  constantly  acting  on  him.  He  is 
essentially  and  inevitably  unapt  to  be  powerfully  acted 
on  by  what  is  invisible  and  future.  In  addition  to  all 
which,  there  is  the  intervention  and  activity  of  the  great 
tempter  and  destroyer.  In  short,  his  condition  is  such 
that  there  is  no  hope  of  him,  but  from  a  direct  special 
operation  on  him  of  what  we  denominate  grace.  Is  it  not 
so?  Are  we  not  convinced?  Is  it  not  the  plain  doctrine  of 
scripture  ?  Is  there  not  irresistible  evidence,  from  a  view 
of  the  actual  condition  of  the  human  world,  that  no  man 
can  become  good,  in  the  Christian  sense,  can  become  fit  for 
a  holy  and  happy  place  hereafter,  but  by  this  operation,  ab 
extra  ?  But  this  is  arbitrary  and  discriminative  on  the 
part  of  the  sovereign  agent,  and  independent  of  the  will  of 
man ;  and  how  awfully  evident  is  it  that  this  indispensable 
operation  takes  place  only  on  a  comparatively  small  propor 
tion  of  the  collective  race  ! 


THIRD   EXPERIENCE.  151 

"Now,  this  creature,  thus  constituted  and  circumstanced^ 
passes  a  few  fleeting  years  on  earth, — a  short,  sinful  course, 
in  which  he  does  often  what,  notwithstanding  his  ignorance 
and  ill-disciplined  judgment  and  conscience,  he  knows  to  be 
wrong,  and  neglects  what  he  knows  to  be  his  duty,  and 
consequently,  for  a  greater  or  less  measure  of  guilt,  widely 
diiferent  in  different  offenders,  deserves  punishment.  But 
endless  punishment !  hopeless  misery  through  a  duration  to 
which  the  enormous  terms  above  imagined  will  be  nothing ! 
I  acknowledge  my  inability  (I  would  say  it  reverently)  to 
admit  this  belief,  together  with  a  belief  in  the  divine  good 
ness, —  the  belief  that  'God  is  love,'  that  his  tender 
mercies  are  over  all  his  works.  Goodness,  benevolence, 
charity,  as  ascribed  in  supreme  perfection  to  Him,  cannot 
mean  a  quality  foreign  to  all  human  conceptions  of  good 
ness.  It  must  be  something  analogous  in  principle  to 
what  himself  has  defined  and  required  as  goodness  in 
his  moral  creatures,  that,  in  adoring  the  divine  goodness, 
we  may  not  be  worshipping  an  '  unknown  God.'  But,  if 
so,  how  would  all  our  ideas  be  confounded  while  contem 
plating  him  bringing,  of  his  own  sovereign  will,  a  race  of 
creatures  into  existence  in  such  a  condition  that  they  cer 
tainly  will  and  must, —  must,  by  their  nature  and  circum 
stances, —  go  wrong  and  be  miserable,  unless  prevented  by 
especial  grace,  which  is  the  privilege  of  only  a  small  pro 
portion  of  them,  and  at  the  same  time  affixing  on  their 
delinquency  a  doom  of  which  it  is  infinitely  beyond  the 
highest  archangel's  faculty  to  apprehend  a  thousandth  part 
of  the  horror !  " 

On  page  290  he  presents  similar  views  : 

"It  would  be  a  transcendently  direful  contemplation,  if  I 
believed  the  doctrine  of  the  eternity  of  future  misery.  It 
amazes  me  to  imagine  how  thoughtful  and  benevolent  men 


152  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

believing  that  doctrine,  can  endure  the  sight  of  the  present 
world,  and  the  history  of  the  past.  To  behold  successive, 
innumerable  crowds  carried  on  in  the  mighty  impulse  of 
a  depraved  nature,  which  they  are  impotent  to  reverse, 
and  to  which  it  is  not  the  will  of  God,  in  his  sovereignty,  to 
apply  the  only  adequate  power,  the  withholding  of  which 
consigns  them  inevitably  to  their  doom  ;  to  see  them  pass 
ing  through  a  short  term  of  mortal  existence  (absurdly 
sometimes  denominated  &  probation),  under  all  the  worlds 
pernicious  influences,  with  the  addition  of  the  malign 
and  deadly  one  of  the  great  tempter  and  destroyer,  to 
confirm  and  augment  the  inherent  depravity,  on  their  speedy 
passage  to  everlasting  woe;  —  I  repeat,  I  am,  without  pre 
tending  to  any  extraordinary  depth  of  feeling,  amazed  to 
conceive  what  they  contrive  to  do  with  their  sensibility,  and 
in  what  manner  they  maintain  a  firm  assurance  of  the 
Divine  goodness  and  justice" 

In  these  passages  we  cannot  but  notice  the  clear  and 
eloquent  manner  in  which  he  combines  the  three  great  ele 
ments  which  I  have  set  forth  as  constituting  the  ruined 
condition  of  man;  deep  personal  depravity  anterior  to 
action,  exposure  to  corrupt  worldly  social  combinations  and 
influences,  and  the  fearful  wiles  of  evil  spirits. 

We  notice,  also,  the  full  faith  with  which  he  sets  them 
forth.  Scripture,  experience,  history,  and  his  own  obser 
vation  and  Christian  consciousness,  appeared  to  him  to  unite 
their  testimony  to  sustain  this  view  of  facts. 

At  the  same  time,  he  was  keenly  alive  to  the  demands  of 
the  principles  of  honor  and  right,  and  could  not  avoid  seeing 
their  contrariety  to  such  alleged  facts.  The  effect  upon  his 
mind  he  states  in  these  affecting  words,  concerning  the  sys 
tem  of  this  world, — "  To  me  it  appears  a  most  mysteriously 
awful  economy,  overspread  by  a  lurid  and  dreadful  shade. ' 


THIRD    EXPERIENCE.  153 

Who  does  not  see  here  the  elements  of  an  experience  pre 
cisely  similar  to  that  of  Dr.  Channing  ?  The  facts  contem 
plated  by  Foster  appeared  to  Channing,  also,  to  present  an 
" awful  economy ,  overspread  by  a  lurid  and  dreadful  shade." 
Of  course,  such  minds  as  these  must  find  relief  somewhere 
from  such  a  state  of  things.  Channing  renounced  and 
denied  the  facts ;  Foster's  mind  was  unable  to  resort  to  this 
mode  of  relief.  The  facts  he  could  not  deny.  The  prin 
ciples  of  honor  he  could  not  renounce.  Hence,  though  he 
saw  that  it  was  at  war  with  the  almost  universal  opinion  of 
the  church  and  the  clear  words  of  scripture,  he  overruled 
the  laws  of  interpretation,  and  rejected,  on  purely  moral 
grounds,  the  doctrine  of  the  eternity  of  future  punishment. 

And  are  there  not  still  other  minds  who  feel  these  dif 
ficulties,  as  well  as  Foster  and  Channing  ?  And  will  not 
such  an  appeal,  presented  with  such  eloquence,  exert  great 
power  on  many  such  minds  ?  Dr.  Woods  seems  to  be  of 
this  opinion.  He  says,  "  The  thoughts  suggested  in  the 
letter,  together  with  the  influence  of  the  author's  name,  are 
adapted  to  unsettle  the  faith  of  multitudes"  Such  an 
influence  was  no  doubt  deeply  felt  in  England.  Foster 
says :  "  A  number  (not  large,  but  of  great  piety  and  intel 
ligence)  of  ministers  within  my  acquaintance  have  been 
disbelievers  of  the  doctrine  in  question,  at  the  same  time 
not  feeling  themselves  called  upon  to  make  a  public  dis 
avowal."  How  many  more  there  may  have  been,  or  may  still 
be,  in  the  same  state  of  mind,  of  course  no  one  can  tell.  But 
the  belief  that  many  real  Christians  held  such  views  caused 
in  England,  as  is  well  known,  a  great  reluctance,  even 
among  the  believers  of  the  doctrine,  to  introduce  it  as  a 
test  in  the  Evangelical  Alliance.  I  know  of  no  reason  to 
be  confident  that  the  views  of  Foster  will  not  also  make 
converts  even  among  the  evangelical  ministers  of  our  own 


154  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

land,  so  strong  is  the  appeal  to  the  principles  of  honor  and 
right,  in  view  of  the  facts  of  human  depravity  as  exten 
sively  held.  I  am  aware  that  many  suppose  that  a  more 
correct  theory  of  free  agency, —  as  applied  to  the  facts  of 
depravity, —  would  have  relieved  Foster,  and  is,  among  us, 
a  defence  against  the  spread  of  his  views.  Of  this  we  can 
better  judge  after  considering  the  next  experience. 

There  is  not,  however,  in  my  judgment,  any  good  reason 
to  believe  that  the  improved  views  in  question  would  have 
given  the  needed  relief  to  Foster.  He  appears  to  have 
considered  the  course  of  reasoning  on  which  they  rest,  and 
to  have  derived  from  it  no  relief. 

He  says  in  his  journal,  No.  485  :  u  The  very  intelligent 
Mr.  G.  reasoned  against  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  original 
depravity"  (that  is,  its  most  radical  form)  ''evidently,  I 
perceived,  from  his  feeling  respecting  that  of  eternal  pun 
ishments.  Believing  this  last,  he  was  anxious  —  as  a  kind 
of  palliation  of  its  severity  —  to  make  man  as  accountable 
a  being  as  possible,  by  making  his  vice  entirely  optional, 
and  so  making  all  his  depravity  his  crime."  Foster,  then, 
had  looked  at  the  principles  of  the  system  that  resolves  all 
moral  depravity  in  man  into  voluntary  action,  and  did  not 
find  in  it  the  requisite  relief.  He  did  not  regard  it  as  a 
true  view  of  the  real  facts  of  the  case.  Nor  did  it  hold 
him  back  from  his  appeal  against  the  doctrine  of  future 
eternal  punishment. 

But,  whether  this  appeal  shall  extensively  avail  or  not  to 
shake  the  belief  of  the  Christian  community  in  that  doc 
trine,  still  it  shows  with  what  fearful  power  the  principles 
of  honor  and  right  operate  upon  some  of  the  most  finely 
,  constituted  minds  of  our  race.     It  shows,  also,  that  sym- 
f  pathy,  and  not  severity,  is  due  to  all  such  minds,  even  if 
they  fall   into   error,   when  struggling   under  the  painful 


THIRD    EXPERIENCE.  155 

pressure  of  a  system  involving  truths  so  great,  and  yet  so 
radically  misadjusted.  It  evinces  no  less  clearly  that  a 
proper  readjustment  of  these  truths  is  the  only  radical 
relief.  It  is  in  vain  to  attempt  to  suppress  or  to  extermi 
nate  the  influence  of  the  principles  of  equity  and  of  honor, 
or  the  efforts  of  men  to  find  relief  from  the  conflict  which 
exists  between  them  arid  the  facts  concerning  human 
depravity  as  commonly  held.  It  is  not  without  deep 
anguish  and  fearful  struggles  that  such  men  as  John 
Foster  are  impelled  to  force  their  way,  by  overruling 
scriptural  testimony,  to  such  results.  There  is  an  awful 
and  affecting  solemnity  and  earnestness  in  his  words,  which 
clearly  indicates  that  his  soul  had  been  agitated  to  its  lowest 
depths.  It  is  affecting  to  think  how  many  other  minds  of  a 
like  kind  may  have  encountered  struggles,  similar  at  least 
in  kind,  if  not  in  their  results.  Moreover,  until  the  system 
is  better  adjusted,  there  will  be  a  powerful  tendency  to  the 
results  at  which  Foster  arrived. 


A 


CHAPTER    X. 

THE   REACTION. 

POWERFUL  as  is  the  appeal  of  John  Foster,  it  is  by  no 
means  adapted  to  control  the  convictions  of  the  universal 
Christian  community.  Its  power  lies  in  the  appeal  to  the 
principles  of  honor  and  right ;  but  there  are  other  truths 
v,  that  will  still  assert  their  claim  to  be  heard,  and  react 
against  it.  The  Bible  will  ever  powerfully  react. 

In  the  next  place,  there  is  a  Christian  experience  which 
so  reveals  the  malignant  nature  of  sin  as  to  throw  it  out 
of  the  pale  of  lawful  sympathy,  as  in  its  essential  nature 
cruel,  and  tending  to  cruelty  in  the  highest  degree,  so  that 
to  punish  it  implies  in  Grod  no  cruelty,  but  the  reverse. 

Cruelty  is  that  disregard  of  the  feelings  of  others,  or 
that  infliction  of  suffering  on  them,  which  arises  from  the 
want  of  a  proper  benevolent  interest  in  their  welfare.  It  is 
not  enough  to  prove  cruelty  that  pain  is  caused.  This  is 
often  done  from  the  most  benevolent  purposes.  In  the 
education  of  children,  to  spare  the  rod  is  often  cruel ;  to 
inflict  it,  mercy. 

But  especially  to  cause  pain,  however  intense,  by  defeat 
ing  malevolent  and  cruel  purposes,  is  not  cruelty.  If  the 
plans  of  a  seducer,  or  an  assassin,  or  a  slanderer,  are 
exposed,  and  a  retributive  tide  of  moral  emotion  turned 
against  them,  they  suffer.  So  is  it  —  so  must  it  ever  be  — 


THE  REACTION.  157 

when  all  sin  is  disappointed  and  exposed.  The  suffering 
thus  caused  is  not  a  kind  of  suffering  which  can  be  felt 
alike  by  good  and  bad,  as  is  the  burning  of  material  fire,, 
or  the  tortures  of  the  inquisition.  Such  physical  tortures 
could  be  continued  even  after  sorrow,  regret,  penitence, 
confession,  and  reformation. 

Such  are  the  physical  ideas  which  many  entertain  of  the 
sufferings  of  hell.  They  came  from  that  church  which  cre 
ated  and  administered  the  inquisition, —  that  tremendous 
engine  of  cruelty, —  and  which  consigned  to  endless  misery 
all  who  refused  to  enter  her  pale,  however  holy  they  might 
be.  Such  a  church  would  need  to  conceive  of  a  hell  whose 
torments  should  depend  on  material  fire,  against  which 
holiness  is  no  defence.  Such  ideas,  too,  have  extensively 
infected  the  imagination  of  the  Protestant  world. 

But  such  is  not  the  suffering  caused  by  the  exposure  and 
punishment  of  sin.  It  is  not  merely  positive  or  physical. 
Much  of  it  is  the  result  of  the  disappointment  of  sinful  pur 
poses,  involving  cruelty  in  their  essential  nature,  and  in  all 
their  tendencies  towards  God  and  man.  Against  suffering 
thus  caused  the  law  of  moral  sympathy  in  holy  minds  does 
not  re'ict. 

A  profound  Christian  experience,  moreover,  reveals  the 
fact  that  the  radical  character  of  all  men  is  selfishness,  as 
opposed  to  the  law  of  love ;  and  that  this  tends  to  cruelty, 
and  is  the  great  source  of  the  cruelty  that  fills  this  earth. 
The  great  design  of  the  gospel  is  by  regeneration  to  remove 
this  root  of  cruelty  and  misery.  But,  if  it  is  not  removed  in 
this  world,  but  is  left  forever  to  increase  in  strength,  and  to 
disclose  its  natural  results,  it  will  encounter  God,  be  exposed 
and  justly  abhorred,  and  thus  be  rendered  unutterably  mis 
erable  ;  and  yet,  by  a  kind  of  misery  which  is  in  its  nature 
so  malignant  that  it  will  repel  all  sympathy,  and  array 
14 


158  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

against  itself  the  reaction  of  benevolent  justice.  In  short, 
the  root  of  future  misery  will  be  the  just  defeat  and  exposure 
of  the  spirit  of  cruelty,  by  infinite  love,  armed  with  infinite 
power.  This  suffering  will  endure  so  long  as  selfishness, 
its  cause,  endures.  To  remove  that  cause  is  the  great 
object  of  regeneration.  The  system  of  this  world  is  adapted 
to  produce  that  change.  Future  suffering,  consisting,  as  it 
does,  in  malignant  passions,  is  not  adapted  to  produce  it,  but 
the  reverse.  There  is,  therefore,  no  reason  why  the  future 
suffering  of  such  as  die  in  sin  should  ever  end. 

A  profound  Christian  experience  naturally  suggests  this 
view,  and  it  is  so  plainly  sustained  by  the  word  of  God  that 
all  doubt  is  removed. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  law  of  God,  by  forbidding  selfish 
ness  and  enjoining  love,  is  seen  to  be,  in  effect,  a  prohibition 
of  cruelty ;  and  its  penalty  a  defence  of  the  universe  against 
such  as  refuse  to  love  God  and  his  creatures,  but  give 
themselves  up  to  a  spirit  of  selfishness,  which,  in  its  very 
essence  and  tendencies,  is  cruel  towards  God  and  all  his 
creatures,  and  deserves  to  be  exposed  and  abhorred  in  all 
who  will  not  renounce  it  and  return  to  the  law  of  love. 

In  addition  to  these  considerations,  as  has  already  been 
stated,  it  is  seen  that  Foster  does  not  furnish  the  needed 
relief  at  the  right  point.  The  real  difficulty  is  that  God 
should  give  to  any  new-created  beings  corrupt  moral  consti 
tutions,  and  then  place  them  in  circumstances  of  so  great 
moral  disadvantage.  It  is  no  relief  to  this  to  say  that  God 
will  not  punish  them  forever  for  the  sins  which  originate 
in  such  a  constitution  and  circumstances.  This  would  be 
no  compensation  for  wronging  them  at  the  outset.  And, 
knowing  by  religious  experience  what  sin  is,  and  to  what  it 
tends,  they  choose  to  believe  the  word  of  God  as  to  its  future 
results,  and  to  take  refuge  in  faith  and  mystery  with  refer- 


THE    REACTION.  159 

ence  to  those  dealings  of  God  which  are  so  hard  to  under 
stand  and  defend,  as  to  the  original  constitutions  and  cir 
cumstances  of  the  human  race,  rather  than  to  disregard  the 
plain  teachings  of  the  Bible  as  to  future  punishment.  Even 
Foster  conceded  that  the  obvious  language  of  the  Bible  was 
strongly  adverse  to  his  views.  This,  to  the  largest  portion 
of  true  Christians,  will  ever  be  decisive.  God  knows  best 
what  will  be  the  future  state  of  sinners.  He  has  a  complete 
view  of  the  whole  case.  It  is  wisest  and  safest,  as  well  as 
our  duty,  to  trust  him.  Thus  will  the  great  body  of  the 
Christian  community  continue  to  reason. 

It  is  not  to  be  expected,  however,  that  all  even  of  true 
Christians  will  be  able  to  find  relief  in  this  course.  Others 
will  not  improbably  feel  impelled  to  obtain  relief  by  reject 
ing  the  doctrine  of  future  eternal  punishment.  Nor,  till 
there  is  a  better  adjustment  of  the  facts  and  principles  of 
the  system,  will  this  powerful  tendency  to  conflict  and 
division  cease.  The  doctrine  of  the  eternity  of  future  pun 
ishments  will  not  ever  be  generally  repudiated,  so  clear  are 
the  revelations  of  Christian  consciousness  as  to  sin,  and  so 
strong  is  the  scriptural  argument  by  which  the  doctrine  is 
sustained.  On  the  other  hand,  till  some  better  adjustment 
is  made,  it  will  be  impossible  to  prevent  some,  even  of  the 
most  pious,  from  seeking  relief  by  following  in  the  steps  of 
John  Foster. 


CHAPTER    XI. 

THE     FOURTH     EXPERIENCE;      OR,     THE     PHILOSO 
PHY     OF     NEW     SCHOOL     THEOLOGY. 

WE  come  now  to  an  experience  of  great  interest  and 
importance,  in  consequence  of  the  controversies  to  which  it 
has  given  rise,  and  the  extended  results  which  still  flow  from 
it.  It  is  that  experience  in  which,  in  some  form,  a  constant 
appeal  is  made  to  the  principles  of  honor  and  right?  to 
modify  or  correct  certain  parts  of  the  Old  School  doctrine 
of  the  ruined  state  of  man,  whilst,  at  the  same  time,  an 
earnest  eifort  is  made  fully  to  retain  and  inculcate  the  real 
and  essential  facts  of  human  depravity,  yet  so  as  to  accord 
alike  with  those  principles  and  with  the  word  of  God. 

It  derived  its  origin  from  no  predisposition  to  subject  the 
doctrines  of  God's  word  to  any  processes  of  cold  and  heart 
less  rationalism.  Its  present  developments  originated  with 
one  of  the  holiest  men  whom  God  has  ever  raised  up  to 
illuminate  and  bless  the  church  and  the  world.  The  deep 
Christian  experience  of  Edwards  has  already  called  forth 
our  grateful  recognition  of  the  goodness  and  sanctifying 
power  of  God,  as  manifested  in  him.  We  now  add  that  it 
was  this  holy  man  who  gave  the  first  impulse  to  the  great 
movement  which  we  are  now  considering. 

The  occasion  of  its  commencement  was  the  interruption 
of  the  plain,  direct  and  faithful  preaching  of  the  gospel, 
which  had  been  caused  by  the  doctrine  of  the  entire  ina- 


THE   FOURTH    EXPERIENCE.  161 

bility  of  the  sinner  to  perform  the  spiritual  duties  of  repent 
ance  and  faith,  upon  which  his  salvation  was  suspended  by 
God.  This  doctrine  was  carried  out  logically. 

In  New  England,  to  a  great  extent,  the  practice  of  urging 
sinners  to  immediate  repentance  and  faith,  as  reasonable  and 
practicable  duties,  had  ceased.  In  place  of  it,  men  were 
directed  to  use  the  means  of  grace  with  moral  sincerity,  and 
to  pray  to  God  that  he  would  interpose  and  do  for  them 
that  which  they  were  unable  to  do  for  themselves.  Uncon 
verted  men  were  encouraged  to  enter  into  either  a  full  or  a 
partial  covenant  with  the  church,  and  to  cherish  the  idea 
that  thus,  at  least  to  a  certain  extent,  they  were  doing  their 
duty.  In  this  way,  although  the  doctrine  of  entire  depravity 
and  absolute  inability  was  retained  in  theory,  it  was  virtu 
ally  denied  in  practice.  The  consciences  of  sinners  were 
thus  quieted,  and  urgent  calls  to  immediate  repentance  had 
almost  entirely  disappeared.  Meanwhile,  errors  of  various 
kinds  were  rolling  in  like  a  flood. 

In  England,  in  some  circles,  as  we  learn  from  the  narra 
tive  of  his  own  experience  by  Andrew  Fuller,  this  same 
doctrine  of  the  absolute  inability  of  the  sinner  to  perform 
spiritual  duties  had  produced  almost  an  entire  cessation  of 
preaching  the  gospel,  in  any  form,  to  the  impenitent.  Ful 
ler  says  of  himself,  "  My  father  and  mother  were  dissenters 
of  the  Calvinistic  persuasion ;  and  were  in  the  habit  of  hear 
ing  Mr.  Eve,  a  Baptist  minister,  who,  being  what  is  here 
termed  high  in  his  sentiments,  or  tinged  with  false  Calvin 
ism,  had  little  or  nothing  to  say  to  the  unconverted.  I 
therefore  never  considered  myself  as  any  way  concerned  in 
what  I  heard  from  the  pulpit."  Again  he  says:  "With 
respect  to  the  system  of  doctrine  which  I  had  been  used  tc 
hear  from  my  youth,  it  was  in  the  high  Calvinistic,  or. 
rather,  hyper-Calvinistic  strain,  admitting  nothing  spiritu- 
14* 


162  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

ally  good  to  be  the  duty  of  the  unregenerate,  and  nothing 
to  be  addressed  to  them  in  a  way  of  exhortation,  excepting 
what  related  to  external  obedience.  Outward  services 
might  be  required,  such  as  an  attendance  on  the  means  of 
grace,  and  abstinence  from  gross  evils  might  be  enforced ; 
but  nothing  was  said  to  them  from  the  pulpit  in  the  way  of 
warning  them  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come,  or  inviting 
them  to  apply  to  Christ  for  salvation."  Of  himself,  when 
he  first  began  to  preach,  he  says :  "  Those  exhortations  to 
repentance  and  faith,  therefore,  which  are  addressed  in  the 
New  Testament  to  the  unconverted,  I  supposed  to  refer 
only  to  such  external  repentance  and  faith  as  were  within 
their  power,  and  might  be  complied  with  without  the  grace 
of  God.  The  effect  of  these  views  was,  that  I  had  very 
little  to  say  to  the  unconverted ;  indeed,  nothing  in  a  way  of 
exhortation  to  things  spiritually  good,  or  certainly  connected 
with  salvation."  Around  him,  too,  on  every  side,  fatal 
errors  were  triumphant. 

Here,  then,  was  an  emergency,  and  in  meeting  it  Ed 
wards  was  God's  chosen  instrument  in  America,  and  Andrew 
Fuller  in  England.  The  great  principle  from  which  this 
reaction  against  the  paralyzing  and  ruinous  errors  which 
have  been  stated  derived  its  life  and  energy  was,  that  the 
inability  ascribed  to  the  sinner  in  the  Bible  was  not  an 
absolute  inability,  caused  by  the  want  of  natural  powers,  but 
solely  a  voluntary  and  inflexible  aversion  to  duty ;  or,  to  use 
the  technical  terms  adopted  to  express  these  ideas,  it  was 
not  a  natural,  but  a  moral  inability,  consisting  in  a  fixed 
unwillingness  to  do  what  God  requires.  Of  course,  so  far 
from  excusing  the  sinner,  it  did  but  enhance  his  guilt. 
Neither  did  it  furnish  any  reason  why  the  sinner  should 
not  be  urged,  by  every  possible  motive,  to  the  immediate 
performance  of  his  duty.  This  at  once  gave  directness, 


THE   FOURTH   EXPERIENCE.  168 

pungency  and  power  to  preaching,  and  led  the  way  in 
extending  those  great  revivals  of  religion  which  began  under 
the  preaching  of  Edwards.  The  principles  were  first  devel 
oped  by  Edwards,  and  carried  out  and  applied  by  Hopkins, 
Bellamy,  and  others  of  kindred  views.  In  England,  Fuller 
at  first  began  to  investigate  the  same  questions  without  aid, 
but,  being  directed  to  the  works  of  Edwards,  adopted  his 
principles  and  results.  Edwards,  inconsistently,  still  held 
to  a  sinful  nature,  but  Hopkins  consistently  developed  from 
these  principles,  and  from  the  treatise  of  Edwards  on  the 
nature  of  true  virtue,  the  doctrine  that  all  sin  and  holiness 
consist  in  voluntary  action,  and  that  the  essence  of  holiness 
is  disinterested  benevolence,  and  of  sin  is  selfishness.  He 
also  rejected  the  doctrine  of  imputation,  or  of  a  forfeiture  of 
the  rights  of  the  human  race  by  the  sin  of  Adam.  Thus 
were  the  foundations  of  New  School  theology  laid  by  men 
of  deep  Christian  experience,  and  in  view  of  ends  of  the 
highest  moment.  It  was  the  theology  of  revivals. 

When  Unitarianism  subsequently  developed  itself,  the 
advocates  of  this  system  constantly  endeavored  so  to  pre 
sent  it  as  to  escape  the  pressure  of  hostile  arguments  derived 
from  the  principles  of  honor  and  of  right,  by  rejecting  all 
that  appears  to  be  irreconcilable  with  them.  Under  such 
influences,  the  system  has  reached  its  present  condition.  The 
advocates  of  these  views  have  had  no  disposition  to  relinquish 
or  to  weaken  the  doctrine  of  depravity.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  voice  of  their  own  Christian  consciousness,  the  word  of 
God,  and  the  testimony  of  history,  have  confirmed  them  in 
its  belief  and  defence.  But  they  have,  nevertheless,  made 
unwearied  efforts  to  reconcile  it  with  the  principles  of  equity 
and  honor,  so  as  to  remove,  if  possible,  the  conflict  which 
had,  in  the  case  of  the  Unitarians,  led  to  results  which  they 
regarded  as  alike  mournful  and  calamitous. 


164  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

Briefly  stated,  then,  their  fundamental  peculiarities  are 
these  :  They  deny  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  pos 
terity, —  that  is,  they  deny  that  God  regards  as  their  act 
that  which  was  not  their  act,  and  that  on  this  ground  he 
inflicts  on  them  the  inconceivably  severe  penalty  alleged 
by  the  Old  School  divines.  They  also  deny  the  existence 
in  man  of  a  nature  in  the  strict  sense  sinful  and  deserving 
of  punishment  anterior  to  knowledge  and  voluntary  action, 
and  teach  that  all  sin  and  holiness  consist  in  voluntary 
action.  As  a  natural  result,  they  also  deny  the  doctrine  of 
the  absolute  and  entire  inability  of  the  sinner  to  do  the 
duties  required  of  him  by  God.  The  inability  asserted  in 
the  Scriptures  they  hold  to  be,  according  to  just  laws  of 
interpretation,  merely  a  fixed  unwillingness  to  comply  with 
the  will  of  God,  which  is  not  inconsistent  with  a  real  and 
proper  ability  to  obey,  but  derives  its  character  of  inexcus 
able  guilt  from  the  existence  of  such  an  ability. 

Any  one  who  will  read  the  writings  of  the  advocates  of 
this  scheme  will  see  at  once  that  they  resort  as  confidently 
to  the  principles  of  honor  and  of  right  for  the  defence  of 
their  peculiar  views  as  either  John  Foster  or  the  Unita 
rians.  The  only  difference  is,  either  that  they  do  not  apply 
them  to  the  same  doctrines,  or  else  not  to  the  same  extent. 
They  do  not  from  a  regard  to  them,  with  Foster,  reject  the 
eternity  of  future  punishment,  nor,  with  the  Unitarians,  the 
doctrine  of  depravity, —  but  they  do  attempt  so  to  modify 
the  old  statements  of  the  latter  doctrine,  in  view  of  them, 
as  to  represent  the  conduct  of  God  towards  his  creatures  in 
their  fall  as  neither  dishonorable  nor  unjust,  and  the  doctrine 
of  eternal  punishment  as  not  at  war  with  benevolence  and 
justice,  and,  therefore,  as  not  incredible. 

These  views,  as  they  passed  out  of  New  England  into  the 
Presbyterian  church,  were  encountered  with  the  most 


THE   FOURTH   EXPERIENCE.  165 

decided  hostility,  and  the  doctrines  of  the  old  theology 
were  inculcated,  often  in  forms  the  most  repulsive  and 
odious  to  the  New  School  divines. 

As  was  natural  in  such  circumstances,  the  emotions  and 
the  language  of  the  advocates  of  these  views,  in  refuting 
what  they  regarded  as  so  injurious,  were  often  no  less  vivid 
and  powerful  than  those  of  the  Unitarians  in  refuting  what 
they  regarded  as  the  pernicious  errors  of  orthodoxy.  We 
have  considered  the  language  of  Dr.  Channing.  Compare 
with  this  the  language  of  Whelpley,  in  his  celebrated 
Triangle.  Speaking  of  the  course  of  events  in  the  city  of 
New  York,  he  says :  "You  shall  hear  it  inculcated  from 
Sabbath  to  Sabbath,  in  many  of  our  churches,  that  a  man 
ought  to  feel  himself  actually  guilty  of  a  sin  committed  six 
thousand  years  before  he  was  born ;  nay,  that,  prior  to  all 
consideration  of  his  own  moral  conduct,  he  ought  to  feel 
himself  deserving  of  eternal  damnation  for  the  first  sin 
of  Adam" 

This,  it  will  be  seen,  is  the  identical  doctrine  that  Pascal 
and  Abelard  undertook  to  defend,  at  the  sacrifice  of  our 
moral  convictions  of  honor  and  right.  Listen,  now,  to  the 
emotions  with  which  it  is  repudiated  by  this  eloquent 
writer,  as  at  war  with  equity  and  honor. 

"  I  hesitate  not  to  say  that  no  scheme  of  religion  ever 
propagated  among  men  contains  a  more  monstrous,  a  more 
horrible  tenet.  The  atrocity  of  this  doctrine  is  beyond 
comparison.  The  visions  of  the  Koran,  the  fictions  of  the 
Sadder,  the  fables  of  the  Zendavesta,  all  give  place  to  this  : 
—  Rabbinical  legends,  Brahminical  vagaries,  all  vanish 
before  it." 

"  The  idea,  that  all  the  numerous  millions  of  Adam's 
posterity  deserve  the  ineffable  and  endless  torments  of  hell, 
for  a  single  act  of  his,  before  any  one  of  them  existed,  is 


166  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

repugnant  to  that  reason  which  God  has  given  us  ;  is  sub 
versive  of  all  possible  conceptions  of  justice."  Concerning 
the  doctrine  of  man's  natural  inability  to  do  his  duty,  he 
uses  the  following  strong  expressions:  "It  is  an  insult 
to  every  man's  unbiased  understanding, —  to  the  light  of 
his  conscience." 

In  like  manner,  the  idea  that  God  gives  us  a  depraved  and 
punishable  nature  anterior  to  knowledge  and  choice  is  by 
the  same  writer  repudiated,  on  the  same  ground.  The  con 
nection  of  these  doctrines  with  that  of  a  limited  atonement 
he  thus  sets  forth :  ' '  The  whole  of  their  doctrine,  then, 
amounts  to  this  :  that  a  man  is,  in  the  first  place,  con 
demned,  incapacitated,  and  eternally  reprobated,  for  the  sin 
of  Adam ;  in  the  next  place,  that  he  is  condemned  over 
again  for  not  doing  that  which  he  is  totally  and  in  all 
respects  unable  to  do ;  and,  in  the  third  place,  that  he  is  con 
demned,  doubly  and  trebly  condemned,  for  not  believing  in 
a  Saviour  who  never  died  for  him,  and  with  whom  he  has 
no  more  to  do  than  a  fallen  angel." 

Of  these  doctrines  he  says  that  "  they  are  calculated 
and  tend  to  drive  men  to  scepticism,  deism,  atheism,  liber 
tinism,  nay,  to  madness."  The  reason  is,  that  by  "  them 
the  first  principles  of  immutable  and  eternal  justice  are 
supervened  and  destroyed." 

He  exposes  the  pretext  that  our  moral  intuitions  —  which 
condemn  such  views  —  are  carnal  or  unsanctified  reason ; 
and  recognizes  in  them  the  voice  of  God.  A  similar  strain 
of  remark  is  very  frequent  in  the  advocates  of  these  views. 
Indeed,  they  are  directly  adapted  to  call  into  exercise  some 
of  the  deepest  arid  most  powerful  emotions  of  the  soul. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that,  in  many  respects,  these  views 
give  great  relief  to  the  mind ;  and  their  appeal  to  the  moral 


THE   FOURTH   EXPERIENCE.  167 

sense  of  the  community  is  powerful,  and,  to  no  small  extent, 
effectual. 

This  system  has  not  had  so  long  a  history,  nor  has  it 
acted  on  so  wide  a  scale,  as  the  older  system.  But  during 
its  existence  it  has  effected  an  incalculable  amount  of  good. 
It  has  exerted  a  penetrating  and  powerful  influence  on  the 
Old  School  theology.  It  has  acted  as  a  counterpoise  against 
its  tendencies  to  paralysis  and  inaction,  and  rendered  it 
more  direct  and  aggressive  in  its  appeals  to  sinners.  It 
early  exploded  the  idea  that  unregenerated  men  could  prop 
erly  be  received  as  members  of  churches,  or  assume  the 
office  of  preaching  the  gospel.  It  elevated  the  standard  of 
piety  and  activity  in  the  clergy  and  in  the  churches.  It 
aroused  and  developed  great  intellectual  activity  in  theolog 
ical  investigations.  Its  great  idea  is,  the  power  and  duty  of 
holy  action.  It  has  accordingly  communicated  an  impulsive 
energy  to  every  interest  and  department  of  society. 

It  has,  moreover,  been  instrumental  in  arousing  the  atten 
tion  of  multitudes  to  religion,  and  exciting  them  to  earnest 
efforts,  and  leading  them  to  true  repentance  and  faith.  And, 
in  connection  with  its  development,  and  under  the  influence 
of  its  advocates,  the  modern  system  of  benevolent  enter 
prise  came  into  existence  and  was  matured  and  established. 
The  system,  therefore,  contains  in  itself  many  elements  of 
great,  varied  and  lasting  power.  Yet  it  has  not  succeeded 
in  uniting  the  Christian  community ;  nor,  thus  far,  does  it 
seem  to  be  approximating  towards  it.  It  has  not  super 
seded  a  reaction  •  it  has  always  been  violently  opposed,  and 
is  no  less  so  now  than  at  any  other  time. 


CHAPTER    XII. 

• 

THE    REACTION. 

THE  reasons  of  the  reaction  which  has  been  referred  to 
I  now  proceed  to  unfold.  The  denial  of  a  depraved 
nature  —  in  the  proper  sense  —  before  action,  is  regarded 
by  many  as  either  leading  to  a  doctrine  of  divine  efficiency 
in  the  production  of  sin,  which,  in  their  view,  reason  and 
the  moral  sense  repudiate ;  or  else  to  the  doctrine  that  the 
cause  of  man's  entire  actual  depravity  is  an  innocent  na- 
,  ture.  and  circumstances. 

It  is  obvious  that,  assuming  the  fact  of  the  universal 
and  entire  actual  depravity  of  the  human  race  as  soon,  as 
they  begin  to  act,  some  cause  ought  to  be  assigned  for  a 
result  so  contrary  to  reason,  interest  and  right.  But,  after 
rejecting  the  theory  of  imputation  and  of  a  sinful  nature, 
in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term,  nothing  seems  to  remain 
but  an  innocent  nature  so  affected  by  the  fall  of  Adam  as 
always  to  lead  to  sin,  or  else  a  stated  exercise  of  divine 
efficiency  to  produce  sinful  volitions  in  every  human  being, 
from  the  beginning  of  his  existence.  Accordingly,  some 
have  taken  one  of  these  grounds,  and  others  the  other. 

With  regard  to  the  second  of  these  schemes,  it  is  plain 
that  it  really  denies  that  there  was  any  influence  or  agency 
in  the  sin  of  Adam  to  produce  universal  sin,  except  that 
it  was  merely  the  condition  on  which  God  suspended  the 


THE    REACTION.  169 

V 
determination  of  his  own  stated  mode  of  action  in  causing 

sin  or  holiness.  If  Adam  had  obeyed,  then  God,  by  direct 
efficiency,  would  have  statedly  caused  obedience  in  all  his 
posterity ;  but,  as  he  sinned,  God  statedly  causes  sin.  This 
view  is  adopted  and  defended  as  necessary,  on  account  of 
a  theory  of  free  agency,  which  denies  to  any  moral  agent 
the  power  of  choice,  except  through  the  agency  of  God  to 
cause  him  to  choose,  and  which  asserts  the  exercise  of  the 
same  divine  agency  in  sinful  as  in  holy  choice.  Some 
eminent  men  have,  I  concede,  reconciled  their  reason  and  # 
moral  sense  to  this  view. 

The  considerations  which  chiefly  recommend  it  are  its 
simplicity,  its  entire  rejection  of  a  depraved  nature  in  any 
form,  its  complete  resolution  of  all  sin  into  voluntary  action, 
and  its  apparent  tendency  to  exalt  the  sovereignty  of  God. 
Some  of  the  bold  language  of  scripture  also  seems,  at  first 
sight,  to  sustain  these  views.  But  it  never  has  been  able 
to  recommend  itself  to  the  universal  Christian  community. 
In  fact,  it  results  in  this  :  that  God,  as  a  sovereign,  and  for 
general  ends,  first  caused  Adam  to  sin,  and  then,  because 
he  sinned  under  the  power  of  this  divine  efficiency,  he  pro 
ceeded  by  a  like  efficiency  to  cause  all  of  his  posterity  to 
sin  in  all  their  actions,  and  always  continues  so  to  do, 
except  when  he  sees  fit  to  cause  holy  actions  by  the  same 
divine  energy. 

This  view  is  properly  rejected  by  numerous  opponents,  on 
the  ground  that  it  would  be  unjust  to  reward  or  punish 
volitions  so  created;  that  it  tends  to  destroy  a  sense  of 
accountability,  and  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  all  just  ideas 
of  free  agency  and  the  liberty  of  the  will. 

We  come  back,  then,  to  the  idea  of  a  deteriorated  consti 
tution,  which,  though  not  sinful  or  punishable,  is  yet  the 
certain,  uniform,  and  universal  cause  of  sin. 
15 


170  CONFLICT    OF    AGES. 

To  this  view  the  Old  School  divines  object  on  two 
grounds  :  first,  that,  however  plausible  the  argument  from 
the  principles  of  honor  and  right,  it  nevertheless  denies, 
under  the  name  of  physical  depravity,  what  are  the  actual 
facts  in  all  men,  as  stated  in  scripture  and  revealed  by 
experience, —  that  is,  real  depravity  and  strong  sinful  pro 
pensities  anterior  to  knowledge  and  action, —  and  that  hence 
it  gives  a  defective  and  superficial  view  of  the  real  nature 
and  power  of  original  sin  and  total  depravity.  There  is, 
as  I  have  before  said,  an  experience  which  tends  to  lead  to 
the  belief  of  such  deep  original  depravity.  An  example  of 
this  we  gave  in  the  case  of  Edwards.  The  depth  of 
depravity  in  the  regenerated  heart  seems  to  such,  bottom 
less, —  far,  far  below  anything  introduced  by  a  wrong  and 
intelligent  main  purpose.  History  and  observation  seem  to 
confirm  these  views. 

It  was  a  spiritual  consciousness  of  this  fact  which  so 
deeply  alarmed  Dr.  Nettleton,  in  view  of  the  doctrine  under 
consideration.  He  felt  that  the  very  foundations  of  ortho 
doxy  were  destroyed ;  and  yet  he  could  not  make  a  logical 
defence  against  the  arguments  of  Dr.  Taylor,  from  the 
principles  of  honor  and  right,  against  physical  depravity 
anterior  to  knowledge  and  choice.  Nor  can  any  one  do  it 
whilst  the  system  of  Christianity  remains  on  its  present 
basis.  Yet  the  feelings  and  the  experience  will  remain, 
and  in  many  minds  will  overrule  all  arguments  against 
them,  even  as  they  did  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Nettleton.  They 
will  also  cause  deep  apprehension  and  alarm.  Those  who 
deny  real  inherent  criminal  depravity,  anterior  to  voluntary 
moral  action,  will  be  regarded  as  abandoning  original  sin, 
and  as  on  the  high  road  to  Pelagianism  and  Unitarianism. 
That  they  have  no  such  purpose,  their  opponents,  if  candid, 
will  concede  ;  yea.  that  they  intend  to  hold  fast  to  the 


THE   REACTION.  171 

great  cardinal  doctrines  of  depravity  and  regeneration  in 
the  fullest  sense.  Yet,  since  they  have  abandoned  the 
plea  of  mystery,  and  adopted  the  principles  of  honor  and 
right,  they  regard  them  as  having  launched  their  system 
on  a  logical  current,  the  tendencies  of  which  they  have 
not  calculated,  and  the  issue  of  which  they  do  not  fore 
see.  They  see,  either  consciously  or  unconsciously,  that  the 
alleged  principles  of  honor  and  right,  as  the  system  now  is, 
directly  tend  to  sweep  away  the  true  and  deep  doctrine 
of  depravity  and  satanic  influence,  and  to  leave  only  a 
nominal  and  superficial  depravity,  which  will  not  finally  differ 
much  from  the  position  of  sober  Unitarians. 

It  is  a  consciousness  of  this  tendency  which  has  aroused 
the  Old  School  divines  to  oppose  the  progress  of  this  sys 
tem  with  so  much  earnestness  and  perseverance.  Their 
feelings  are  clearly  stated  in  the  following  letter  of  Dr. 
Nettle  ton  to  Dr.  Woods.  (Memoir,  pp.  291—4.) 

Speaking  of  those  who  hold  these  views,  he  says,  '  '•  They 
admit  that  there  is  a  tendency  or  propensity  to  sin  in  the 
very  constitution  of  the  human  mind,  but  they  deny  that 
this  tendency  is  sinful."  In  consequence  of  this,  he 
says,  "  They  adopt  a  new  theory  of  regeneration.  It  has 
been  said  by  some  that  regeneration  consists  in  removing 
this  sinful  bias,  which  is  anterior  to  actual  volition ;  this 
they  deny.  But,  whether  we  call  this  propensity  sinful  or 
not,  all  orthodox  divines  who  have  admitted  its  existence 
have,  I  believe,  united  in  the  opinion  that  regeneration  does 
consist  in  removing  it.  *  *  No  sinner  ever  did  or  ever 
will  make  a  holy  choice  prior  to  an  inclination,  bias  or  tend 
ency,  to  holiness.  On  the  whole,  their  views  of  depravity, 
of  regeneration,  and  the  mode  of  preaching  to  sinners,  can 
not  fail,  I  think,  of  doing  very  great  mischief.  This  ex 
hibition  overlooks  the  most  alarming  features  of  humap 


172  CONFLICT    OF  AGES. 

depravity,  and  the  very  essence  of  experimental  religion. 
It  is  directly  calculated  to  prevent  sinners  from  coming 
under  conviction  of  sin.  *  *  The  progress  of  conviction 
is  ordinarily  as  follows : — Trouble  and  alarm,  1.  On  account 
of  outward  sins.  2.  On  account  of  sinful  thoughts. 
3.  On  account  of  hardness  of  heart,  deadness  and  insens 
ibility  to  divine  things,— tendency,  bias,  proneness  or  pro 
pensity  to  sin,  both  inferred  and  felt;  and  this  the  convicted 
sinner  always  regards,  not  merely  as  calamitous,  but  as 
awfully  criminal  in  the  sight  of  God.  And  the  sinner 
utterly  despairs  of  salvation  without  a  change  in  this  pro 
pensity  to  sin ;  and  while  he  feels  this  propensity  to  be 
thus  criminal,  he  is  fully  aware  that,  if  God  by  a  sovereign 
act  of  his  grace  does  not  interpose  to  remove  or  change  it, 
he  shall  never  give  his  heart  to  God,  nor  make  one  holy 
choice.  If  the  sinner  has  not  felt  this,  he  has  not  yet  been 
under  conviction  of  sin,  or  felt  his  need  of  regeneration." 

Of  those  who  adopt  the  views  which  he  is  opposing  he 
says:  "They  do  in  effect  tell  their  hearers  and  their  readers 
what  the  most  godly  Christians  certainly  find  it  the  most 
difficult  to  believe, —  that  their  propensity  to  sin,  however 
strong  it  may  be,  is  not  criminal,  but  only  calamitous  ;  that 
they  need  not  be  alarmed  at  this  awful  propensity  to  sin ; 
that  they  need  not,  for  God  does  not,  regard  it  with  dis 
pleasure.  *  Every  step  in  the  progress  of  conviction  and 
conversion  is  in  direct  opposition  to  these  sentiments." 

He  then  states  strongly  the  tendency  of  such  views  to 
produce  spurious  conversions,  and  adds  :  "  Piety  never  did 
and  never  will  descend  far  in  the  line  of  such  sentiments. 
Were  I  to  preach  in  this  manner,  I  do  solemnly  believe  that 
I  should  be  the  means  of  healing  the  hurt  of  awakened  sin 
ners  slightly  ;  of  crying  peace,  peace,  when  there  is  no  peace, 


THE   REACTION.  173 

and  of  throwing  the  whole  weight  of  my  ministerial  influence 
on  the  side  of  human  rebellion  against  God." 

No  one  can  properly  refuse  to  honor  the  deep  experimental 
feeling  which  prompted  these  remarks,  and  the  sincerity 
and  earnestness  of  the  protest  against  the  views  in  question. 
Nor  are  such  sentiments  and  feelings  confined  to  Dr.  Net- 
tleton.  Many  sympathize  with  him.  Dr.  Woods,  in  his 
lectures  recently  published,  has  enforced  similar  views. 
The  same  is  true  of  the  writers  in  the  last  series  of  the 
Panoplist.  On  this  ground  we  explain  their  fear  of  ration 
alism,  and  of  the  intuitive  principles  of  the  Scotch  philos 
ophers  ;  for  their  great  difficulty  is  to  refute  the  argument 
from  the  intuitive  principles  of  honor  and  right,  against  a 
depraved  nature  before  choice.  The  Princeton  divines  pur 
sue  the  same  strain  of  argument,  and  so  do  all  who  sym 
pathize  with  them  in  New  England;  especially  Dr.  Dana,  in 
his  letter  to  Professor  Stuart,  and  in  his  recent  Appeal. 

Nor  is  this  all.  It  is  still  further  alleged  that  so  long  as 
the  doctrine  of  a  deteriorated  nature,  resulting  in  the 
universal  certainty  of  a  consequent  actual  and  total  deprav 
ity,  is  retained,  there  is  no  real  relief  gained  in  respect  to 
the  alleged  conflict  with  the  principles  of  honor  and  right. 

This  objection  to  this  view  is  sustained  by  the  allegation 
that  the  chief  difficulty  lies  more  in  the  thing  done  than  in 
the  mode  of  doing  it. 

The  thing  done  is  this,  as  is  agreed  on  both  sides.  God. 
in  consequence  of  Adam's  act, — an  act  preceding  the  personal 
existence  of  all  men, —  has,  in  some  way,  brought  it  to  pass 
that  all  men,  without  fail  in  any  one  case,  do  sin  and  come 
into  a  state  of  utter  and  endless  ruin,  unless  they  are  saved 
from  it  by  supernatural  and  special  grace.  Moreover,  it  is 
conceded  that  it  was  God's  purpose  and  design  to  effect  this, 
and  in  some  way  he  established  a  system  or  a  constitution 
15* 


174  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

by  which  it  has  been  effected.  In  this  fact,  it  is  said,  —  a  fact 
conceded  by  both  sides,  —  the  main  and  great  difficulty  lies. 
In  removing  this  difficulty,  Professor  Hodge  says  that  every 
theory  that  denies  imputation  is  less  effectual  than  the  doc 
trine  of  imputation.  Under  this  statement  he  includes  the 
theory  of  a  depraved  and  criminal  nature  before  action,  a 
deteriorated  constitution  leading  to  sin,  and  a  divine  system 
or  constitution  leading  to  sin.  Professor  Hodge  says  : 

"How  is  it  to  be  reconciled  with  the  divine  character, 
that  the  fate  of  unborn  millions  should  depend  on  an  act 
over  which  they  had  not  the  slightest  control,  and  in  which 
they  had  no  agency  ?  This  difficulty  presses  the  opponents 
of  the  doctrine  (of  imputation)  more  heavily  than  its  ad 
vocates."  These  views  are  sustained  by  the  Princeton  re 
viewers.  God,  they  say,  must  produce  such  results  either 
on  the  ground  of  justice  or  of  sovereignty.  The  defenders 
of  imputation  take  the  ground  of  justice.  Their  opponents 
that  of  sovereignty.  This,  they  say,  greatly  aggravates  the 
difficulty. 

"  Is  it  more  congenial  with  the  unsophisticated  moral 
feelings  of  men  that  God,  out  of  his  mere  sovereignty,  should 
determine  that  because  one  man  sinned  all  men  should  sin, 
that  because  one  man  forfeited  his  favor  all  men  should 
incur  his  curse,  or  because  one  man  sinned  all  should  be 
born  with  a  contaminated  moral  nature,  than  that,  in  virtue 
of  a  most  benevolent  constitution,  by  which  one  was  made 
the  representative  of  the  race,  the  punishment  of  the  one 
should  come  upon  all  ?  " 

Against  the  theory  of  mere  sovereignty  Professor  Hodge 
alleges  that,  "  It  represents  the  race  as  being  involved  in 
ruin  and  condemnation,  without  having  the  slightest  pro 
bation."  The  same  allegation  is  made  elsewhere  by  the 


THE    REACTION.  175 

Princeton  reviewers.  (Princeton  Theol.  Essays,  vol.  II. 
p.  159.) 

This  allegation,  of  course,  leads  them  to  state  what  are 
the  principles  of  honor  and  right,  as  it  respects  a  new- 
created  being.  We  have  already  stated  them,  but  will  refer 
to  them  again.  First,  that  to  every  such  being  a  probation 
is  due.  "  Is  it  not  necessary  (they  say)  that  a  moral  being 
should  have  a  probation  before  his  fate  is  decided?  "  Again, 
they  state  what  is  essential  to  a  FAIR  probation,  and,  in  so 
doing,  they  distinctly  recognize  the  binding  force  of  two  of 
the  most  stringent  of  the  principles  of  honor  and  right 
which  I  have  laid  down.  I  mean  those  that  relate  to  the 
original  constitution  and  circumstances  of  a  new-created 
being.  Concerning  these  I  assert  that  honor  and  right  require 
that  they  be  such  as  to  render  a  favorable  result  of  pro 
bation  to  each  individual  hopeful,  and  not  utterly  im 
probable  and  hopeless.  In  accordance  with  this,  they  say, 
"A  probation,  to  be  FAIR,  must  afford  as  favorable  a  pros 
pect  of  a  happy  as  of  an  unhappy  conclusion." 

Is  this  condition  complied  with,  say  they,  if  God  either 
gives  a  depraved  nature,  before  action  and  trial,  in  con 
sequence  of  a  single  act  of  Adam,  done  ages  before  they 
were  born,  and  in  which  they  did  not  participate,  or  if, 
before  action  or  trial,  he  introduces  into  their  original  con 
stitution  predisposing  causes  of  sin,  so  powerful  and  certain 
in  their  operation  that  they  are  sure  to  ruin  all,  unless 
counteracted  by  a  divine  interposition  transcending  all 
human  power,  and  then  exposes  the  possessors  of  such 
natures,  even  from  their  earliest  years,  through  life,  to  the 
influences  of  sinful  organizations ;  and  to  all  this  superadds 
the  fearful  wiles  of  Satan  and  his  hosts  ?  Or,  if  we  resort 
to  the  idea  of  merely  a  divine  constitution,  intentionally  so 
ordained  as  in  some  way  to  effect  the  same  results,  is  the 


176  CONFLICT  OF  AGES. 

3ase  any  better?  In  the  judgment  of  the  Princeton  divines, 
not  at  all.  They  say,  "  Men  are  brought  up  to  their  trial 
under  a  '  divine  constitution,'  which  secures  the  certainty 
of  their  sinning ;  and  this  is  done  because  an  individual 
sinned  thousands  of  years  before  the  vast  majority  of  them 
were  born  ?  Is  this  a  fair  trial  ?  " 

Again,  they  say,  "  What  greater  evil  for  moral  and  im 
mortal  beings  can  there  be  than  to  be  born  '  contaminated 
in  their  moral  nature,'  or  under  a  divine  constitution  which 
secures  'the  universality  and  certainty  of  sin,'  and  that,  too, 
with  undeviating  and  remorseless  effect?  It  is,  as  Coleridge 
well  says,  c  an  outrage  on  common  sense '  to  affirm  that  it 
is  no  evil  for  men  to  be  placed  on  their  probation  under 
such  circumstances  that  not  one  of  ten  thousand  millions 
ever  escaped  sin  and  condemnation  to  eternal  death." 

It  will,  perhaps,  be  asked,  how  much  better  is  that  to 
which  the  Princeton  divines  resort  as  a  justification  of  God, 
in  producing  the  facts  in  question  ?  This  let  every  man 
decide  for  himself.  They  resort  to  the  idea  that  we  had 
a  fair  probation  in  Adam.  God  (they  say)  appointed 
him  our  federal  head,  and  made  a  covenant  with  him, 
including  us.  His  probation  he  regarded  as  our  probation ; 
his  sin  as  our  sin ;  his  act  as  our  act.  Hence,  from  the 
beginning  of  our  existence,  he  regards  us  as  covenant 
breakers  and  rebels,  withholds  divine  influences  from  us,  and 
leaves  us  to  the  consequent  and  necessary  corruption  of 
nature,  to  actual  sin,  and  to  final  ruin,  unless  grace  inter 
poses.  I  have  already  given  my  views  of  this  effort  at  jus 
tifying  the  alleged  facts,  and  need,  at  present,  to  make  no 
more  remarks.  I  recur  to  it  here  for  the  sake  of  saying 
that,  according  to  the  Princeton  divines, — and  in  this  they 
are  correct. — all  the  Reformers,  had  it  not  been  for  the 
assumption  of  such  a  probation,  trial,  failure,  and  con- 


THE   REACTION.  177 

demnation  in  Adam,  would  have  felt  it  impossible  to  justify 
God  in  bringing  men  into  existence  with  depraved  natures. 
Speaking  of  Mark,  they  say,  "  He.  in  common  with  all 
the  Reformers,  almost  without  exception,  and  the  whole  body 
of  the  reformed,  constantly  make  the  distinction  between 
imputed  sin  and  inherent  corruption  ;  maintaining  that  the 
latter  COULD  NOT  BE  RECONCILED  WITH  GOD'S  JUSTICE 

WITHOUT   THE    ADMISSION    OF   THE   FORMER." 

This  theory,  it  is  interesting  to  notice,  leads  to  modes  of 
speech  which  seern  to  be  designed  to  pay  homage  to  the 
sense  of  honor  and  justice  which  God  has  implanted  in  the 
mind.  Men  are,  therefore,  spoken  of  as  having  been  once 
upright ;  as  having  had  a  fair  probation ;  as  having  failed 
in  the  trial ;  as  having  broken  the  covenant,  and  revolted 
from  God  ;  as  having  corrupted  their  natures,  and  justly 
exposed  themselves  to  the  anger  of  God.  These  forms  of 
speech  plainly  evince  what  are  the  demands  of  honor  and 
right,  and  are  adapted  to  turn  away  the  eye  from  the  pain 
ful  realities  of  the  case ;  and  thus  enable  those  who  think  to 
justify  God  by  them,  and  are  affected  by  them,  as  if  it  were 
possible  that  the  real  facts  could  correspond  with  them,  to 
see  clearly  that  the  theories  of  a  corrupt  nature  before  action, 
or  a  deteriorated  nature  always  sure  to  lead  to  sin,  or  a 
divine  constitution  adapted  and  sure  to  lead  to  sin,  are 
unjust  to  new-created  minds. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  those  who  resort  for  relief  to  the 
theory  that  all  sin  consists  in  voluntary  action,  and  that 
men,  as  free  agents,  have  truly  a  real,  though  never  ex- 
srcised,  power  to  avoid  becoming  sinful  from  the  first,  see 
just  as  clearly  that  every  possible  form  of  the  doctrine  of 
imputation  fails  to  justify  the  great  conceded  facts  of 
human  depravity.  The  idea  of  a  mysterious  unity  of  all 
men  in  Adam,  so  as  to  make  one  great  moral  person,  thus 


178  CONFLICT    OF    AGES. 

making  the  sin  of  Adam  truly  and  properly  that  of  every 
man,  they  reject  as  absurd,  and  in  this  the  Princeton  divines 
agree  with  them.  The  literal  transfer  of  the  moral  charac 
ter  and  personal  guilt  of  Adam  to  all  men,  they  reject ;  and 
so  do  the  Princeton  divines.  The  doctrine  that  God,  by  any 
constitution  or  covenant  whatever,  can  justly  or  honorably 
regard  Adam's  sin  as  the  sin  of  thousands  of  millions  who 
are  and  were  confessedly  innocent  of  it,  as  not  being  in 
existence  when  it  was  committed,  and  on  the  ground  of  such 
an  unjust  judgment  inflict  on  them  that  which  is  of  all  evils 
the  essence  and  the  sum,  they  also  very  properly  reject, 
though  here  their  Princeton  brethren  do  not  agree  with 
them. 

What,  then,  is  the  result  1  Two  large  bodies  of  most 
intelligent  and  pious  men  reject  reciprocally  each  other's 
grounds  for  justifying  the  facts  in  question.  It  is  certainly 
supposable,  and  not  at  all  improbable,  that  both  sides  are 
correct  in  the  allegation  that  the  views  of  their  opponents 
do  thus  war  with  honor  and  right. 

At  all  events,  it  is  plain  that  the  New  School  views  do  not  so 
meet  and  satisfy  the  sense  of  honor  and  right,  in  the  advocates 
of  the  doctrine  of  imputation,  as  to  remove  deep  conflict  and 
division.  A  similar  retort  is  made  by  Dr.  Woods  against 
the  New  School  divines,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  they 
reject  the  idea  that  God  gives  to  his  creatures  a  nature 
which  is,  in  the  proper  and  literal  sense,  sinful  before 
action,  as  dishonorable  to  him,  and  at  war  with  equity.  To 
this  Dr.  Woods  replies  that  the  doctrine  in  question  is  not 
at  all  worse  than  the  doctrine  that  God  gives  to  all  men 
deteriorated  natures,  which,  even  if  not  strictly  sinful,  are 
yet  sure  to  lead  them  into  sin  and  ruin.  This,  it  will  be 
seen,  is  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  Dr.  Watts, 
Wesley,  and  the  Reformers,  that  it  is  dishonorable  and  un- 


THE    REACTION.  179 

just  (if  there  has  been  no  forfeiture  of  rights)  to  give  to  a 
new-created  being  a  preponderating  bias  to  sin.  Dr.  Woods 
urges  his  retort  at  great  length.  I  will  give  a  specimen  of 
his  mode  of  reasoning. 

In  replying  to  the  charge  that  it  is  unjust  for  God  "to 
bring  moral  corruption  and  ruin  upon  the  whole  human 
race  merely  on  account  of  one  offence  of  their  common  pro 
genitor,  and  without  any  fault  of  theirs,"  he  says :  "And 
is  there  not  just  as  much  reason  to  urge  this  objection 
against  the  theory  just  named?  Its  advocates  hold  that 
God  brings  the  whole  human  race  into  existence  without 
holiness,  and  with  such  propensities  and  in  such  circum 
stances  as  will  certainly  lead  them  into  sin ;  and  that  he 
brings  them  into  this  fearful  condition  in  consequence  of 
the  sin  of  their  first  father,  without  any  fault  of  their 
own.  Now,  as  far  as  the  divine  justice  or  goodness  is  con 
cerned,  what  great  difference  is  there  between  our  being 
depraved  at  first,  and  being  in  such  circumstances  as  will 
certainly  lead  to  depravity  the  moment  moral  action  begins? 
Will  not  the  latter  as  infallibly  bring  about  our  destruction 
as  the  former  ?  and  how  is  it  more  compatible  with  the  jus 
tice  or  the  goodness  of  God  to  put  us  into  one  of  these 
conditions  than  into  the  other,  when  they  are  both  equally 
fatal?  It  is  said  that  our  natural  appetites  and  propensities 
and  our  outward  circumstances  do  not  lead  us  into  sin  by 
any  absolute  or  physical  necessity;  but  they  do,  in  all 

cases,  certainly  lead  us  into  sin.  and  God  knows  that  thev 
**  t$ 

will  when  he  appoints  them  for  us.  Now,  how  can  ouif- 
merciful  Father  voluntarily  place  us,  while  feeble,  helpless 
infants,  in  such  circumstances  as  he  knows  beforehand  wilj 
be  the  certain  occasion  of  our  sin  and  ruin  ?  *  *  % 
What  difference  does  it  make,  either  as  to  Goxl's  character 
or  the  result  of  his  proceedings,  whether  he  constitutes  113 


180  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

sinners  at  first,  or  knowingly  places  us  in  such  circum 
stances  that  we  shall  certainly  become  sinners,  and  that 
very  soon  ?  Must  not  God's  design  as  to  our  being  sinners 
be  the  same  in  one  case  as  in  the  other ;  and  must  not  the 
final  result  be  the  same  ?  Is  not  one  of  these  states  of 
mankind  fraught  with  as  many  and  as  great  evils  as  the 
other  ?  What  ground  of  preference,  then,  would  any  man 
have  ?  *  *  *  Let  intelligent,  candid  men,  who  do  not 
believe  either  of  these  schemes,  say  whether  one  of  them  is 
not  open  to  as  many  objections  as  the  other.  It  is  said 
that  all  the  feelings  of  our  hearts  revolt  at  the  idea  that  God 
gives  us  a  depraved,  sinful  nature  at  our  birth,  and  that  no 
man  can  believe  this  without  resisting  and  overcoming  his 
most  amiable  sensibilities ;  and  do  not  our  moral  feelings 
equally  revolt  at  the  idea  that  God  creates  us  without 
holiness,  and  gives  us  at  our  birth  such  appetites  and  pro 
pensities  as  he  knows  will  forthwith  bring  us  into  a  state  of 
depravity  ?  And  have  we  not  as  much  occasion  to  resist 
and  overcome  our  amiable  sensibilities  in  one  case  as  in  the 
other?"  (Woods,  vol.  n.  pp.  359—361.) 

The  appeal  of  Dr.  Woods  to  those  who  do  not  believe 
either  of  these  schemes  had  already  been  fully  met,  as  will 
be  remembered,  by  Dr.  Channing.  After  condemning  the 
older  form  of  the  doctrine,  which  involves  a  depraved  and 
punishable  nature  before  action,  he  condemns,  with  no  less 
severity,  "the  more  modern  exposition,  that  we  came  from  the 
hand  of  our  Maker  with  such  a  constitution,  and  are  placed 
under  such  influences  and  circumstances,  as  to  render  certain 
and  infallible  the  total  depravity  of  every  human  being, 
from  the  first  moment  of  his  moral  agency."  Concerning 
this  view,  he  says,  "  That  to  give  existence  under  this  con 
dition  would  argue  unspeakable  cruelty,  and  that  to  punish 
the  sin  of  this  unhappily  constituted  child  with  endless  ruin 


THE    REACTION.  181 

would  be  a  wrong  unparalleled  by  the  most  merciless  des 
potism." 

It  is  plain,  then,  that  no  real  available  and  general 
harmony  is  effected  by  the  positions  of  the  New  School 
party.  Indeed,  as  we  see,  they  satisfy  neither  the  Unita 
rians,  as  zealous  advocates  of  honor  and  right,  on  the  one 
hand,  nor  the  thorough  defenders  of  the  innate  depravity 
and  utterly  ruined  condition  of  man,  on  the  other.  Both 
of  these  parties  agree  that  a  conflict  with  the  principles  of 
honor  and  right  exists  as  truly  in  the  new  scheme  as  in  the 
old.  And,  in  addition  to  this,  the  Old  School  divines 
regard  the  denial  of  a  real,  inherent  criminal  depravity, 
anterior  to  action,  as  virtually  an  abandonment  of  the  doc 
trine  of  original  sin,  and  as  leading  ultimately  to  Pelagi- 
anism  and  Unitarianism. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  New  School  party  relying, 
justly,  on  the  self-evident  principles  of  equity  and  honor, 
reject  the  theory  of  imputation  and  forfeiture  on  which  the 
Old  School  party  base  their  entire  justification  of  God.  In 
this  they  are  sustained  by  the  unanimous  concurring  opin 
ion  of  the  Unitarian  party.  Both  of  these  parties  agree 
that  the  fundamental  position  of  the  old  theology  is  utterly 
indefensible. 

With  reference  to  the  New  School  theology,  I  would  here 
also  say  that  it  has,  at  least  as  held  by  certain  minds  and 
in  certain  circumstances,  a  tendency  to  degrade  our  concep 
tions  of  free  agency.  To  escape  the  pressure  of  the  argu 
ment  against  the  theory  of  a  deteriorated  moral  constitu 
tion,  that  it  is  at  war  with  equity  and  honor  in  God,  some, 
who  profess  to  hold  the  doctrines  of  the  New  School 
divines,  take  the  ground  that  the  moral  constitutions  of 
men  are  as  good  as  the  nature  of  free  agency  will  allow. 
In  this  way  they  arrive  at  the  same  virtual  degradation  of 
10 


182  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

free  agency  of  which  I  have  spoken  when  considering  the 
tendencies  of  Unitarian  theology.  This  is,  virtually,  a 
denial  that  there  has  been  any  fall  of  the  race.  But,  cer 
tainly,  it  is  a  very  low  and  unworthy  conception  of  the 
capabilities  of  free  agency  to  suppose  that  the  mournful 
and  deeply  corrupt  moral  developments  of  this  world  are  a 
fair  illustration  of  its  natural  tendencies  and  results  in  the 
best  and  most  uncorrupted  minds. 

Even  that  Hegelian  view  of  the  necessity  of  moral  evil 
as  a  means  of  education,  which  Dr.  Burnap  was  not  willing 
to  adopt, —  though  his  views  seem  to  approximate  to  it, — 
has  an  unpleasant  similarity  to  the  views  of  Dr.  Bushnell. 
He  teaches  that  '  •  if  a  child  was  born  as  clear  of  natural 
prejudice  or  damage  as  Adam  before  his  sin,  spiritual 
education,  or,  what  is  the  same,  probation,  that  which 
trains  a  being  for  a  stable,  intelligent  virtue  hereafter 
would  still  involve  an  experiment  of  evil ;  therefore,  a 
fall  and  bondage  under  the  laws  of  evil."  Again,  of 
Christian  virtue  he  says  :  "It  involves  a  struggle  with 
evil,  a  fall  and  rescue.  The  soul  becomes  established  in 
holy  virtue  as  a  free  exercise  only  as  it  is  passed  round 
the  corner  of  fall  and  redemption,  ascending  thus  unto  God 
through  a  double  experience,  in  which  it  learns  the  bitter 
ness  of  evil  and  the  worth  of  good ;  fighting  its  way  out  of 
one,  and  achieving  the  other  as  a  victory."  It  would 
seem,  according  to  this,  that  such  is  free  agency  that  a 
process  of  sinning  is  an  indispensable  part  of  a  finished 
spiritual  education  in  all  minds.  This  certainly  degrades 
free  agency  to  the  lowest  point  of  the  scale,  and  represents 
moral  evil  as  a  necessary  means  of  moral  education  at  all 
times,  and  in  all  worlds.  But,  if  evil  is  thus  necessary  for 
such  an  end,  how  can  a  proper  sense  of  its  moral  ill -desert 
/  be  consistently  retained  ? 


THE   REACTION.  183 

This  error  may,  perhaps,  have  arisen  from  generalizing 
as  true  of  all  minds  what  is  sometimes  true  of  depraved 
minds.  If  inherent  depravity  exists,  to  act  it  out  is  some 
times  overruled  to  effect  a  cure.  But,  that  sin  is  not  neces 
sary  to  develop  undepraved  minds,  the  case  of  the  unfallen 
angels  and  of  Christ  plainly  shows. 

On  the  whole,  after  thus  considering  the  diverse  systems 
which  have  resulted  from  an  attempt  to  modify  the  facts  so 
as  to  accord  with  the  principles  of  honor  and  right,  the 
following  conclusion  appears  to  be  established :  that  though, 
so  far  as  they  rest  on  these  principles,  they  all  have  inde 
structible  elements  of  power,  yet  they  always  give  rise  to  a 
powerful  reaction.  Hence,  though  in  certain  aspects  they 
have  a  decided  logical  advantage  over  the  old  system,  yet  it 
also,  in  other  aspects,  has  a  great  power  of  assault,  as 
opposed  to  them.  The  deep  depravity  of  man,  even  before 
action,  seems  to  find  a  response  in  facts  in  human  con 
sciousness  and  in  the  word  of  God.  In  particular,  a  deep 
Christian  experience  leads  naturally  to  its  belief.  The 
moral  wants  of  man  and  Christian  experience  will  ever 
give  power  to  the  deepest  views  of  depravity  ;  and.  when 
the  conclusions  derived  from  the  principles  of  honor  and 
right  begin  to  render  the  New  School  system  superficial, 
there  will  be  a  reaction  in  some  of  the  most  experimental 
minds  to  deeper  views.  But,  since  these  profound  views 
cannot  be  harmonized  with  reason  and  the  moral  sense,  as 
the  system  is  now  adjusted,  the  exercise  of  these  powers 
with  reference  to  them  will  be  proscribed,  and  refuge  will 
be  sought  in  faith  and  mystery.  From  this  result  other 
minds  will  again  earnestly  and  decidedly  react,  and  thus 
the  conflict  will  be  eternal. 


CHAPTER    XIII. 

OR,     THE     ECLIPSE    OF 
THE    GLORY    OF    GOD. 

WE  now  come  to  an  experience  which,  in  its  full  develop 
ment,  is  less  common  than  either  of  those  which  have  been 
considered ;  but  towards  which,  nevertheless,  there  are 
often  strong  tendencies.  It  is  that  experience  in  which  the 
principles  of  honor  and  right,  and  also  the  facts  concerning 
the  depravity  and  ruin  of  man,  are  both  retained,  and  yet 
without  the  perception  of  any  satisfactory  mode  of  modifi 
cation  and  adjustment.  In  this  case  the  mind  comes,  for  a 
time,  under  the  oppressive  and  overwhelming  consciousness 
of  existing,  apparently,  under  a  universal  system  which  is 
incapable  of  defence,  and  under  a  God  whom  the  principles 
of  honor  and  of  right  forbid  us  to  worship. 

We  will  first  look  at  the  tendencies  to  this  state  as  illus 
trated  in  the  experience  of  an  eminent  theological  writer, 
whose  views  we  have  before  considered ;  we  refer  to  the 
celebrated  John  Foster.  In  a  letter  to  that  distinguished 
scholar  and  divine.  Dr.  Harris,  President  of  Cheshunt  Col 
lege,  Foster  thus  expresses  himself: 

"  I  hope,  indeed  may  assume,  that  you  are  of  a  cheerful 
temperament ;  but  are  you  not  sometimes  invaded  by  the 
darkest  visions  and  reflections,  while  casting  your  view  over 
the  scene  of  human  existence,  from  the  beginning  to  this 
hour  ?  To  me  it  apposvr  j  >ost  mysteriously  awful 
economy,  overspread  by?  !.:/' '  .ind  dreadful  shade.  I  pray 


FIFTH   EXPERIENCE.  185 

for  the  piety  to  maintain  an  humble  submission  of  thought 
and  feeling  to  the  wise  and  righteous  Disposer  of  all  exist 
ence.  But,  to  see  a  nature  created  in  purity,  qualified  for 
perfect  and  endless  felicity,  but  ruined ',  at  the  very  origin, 
by  a  disaster  devolving  fatally  on  all  the  race, —  to  see  it 
in  an  early  age  of  the  world  estranged  from  truth,  from  the 
love  and  fear  of  its  Creator ;  from  that,  therefore,  without 
which  existence  is  a  thing  to  be  deplored, —  abandoned  to 
all  evil,  till  swept  away  by  a  deluge, —  the  renovated  race 
revolving  into  idolatry  and  iniquity,  and  spreading  down 
ward  through  ages  in  darkness,  wickedness  and  misery, — 
no  Divine  dispensation  to  enlighten  and  reclaim  it,  except 
for  one  small  section,  and  that  section  itself  a  no  less 
flagrant  proof  of  the  desperate  corruption  of  the  nature  ;  — 
the  ultimate,  grand  remedial  visitation,  Christianity,  labor 
ing  in  a  difficult  progress  and  very  limited  extension,  and 
soon  perverted  from  its  purpose  into  darkness  and  super 
stition,  for  a  period  of  a  thousand  years, —  at  the  present 
hour  known  and  even  nominally  acknowledged  by  very 
greatly  the  minority  of  the  race,  the  mighty  mass  remain 
ing  prostrate  under  the  infernal  dominion  of  which  countless 
generations  of  their  ancestors  have  been  the  slaves  and 
victims, —  a  deplorable  majority  of  the  people  in  the  Chris 
tian  nations  strangers  to  the  vital  power  of  Christianity, 
and  a  large  proportion  directly  hostile  to  it ;  and  even  the 
institutions  pretended  to  be  for  its  support  and  promotion 
being  baneful  to  its  virtue, —  its  progress  in  the  work  of 
conversion,  in  even  the  most  favored  part  of  the  world,  dis 
tanced  by  the  progressive  increase  of  the  population,  so 
that  even  there  (but  to  a  fearful  extent,  if  we  take  the 
world  at  large)  the  disproportion  of  the  faithful  to  the 
irreligious  is  continually  increasing, —  the  sum  of  all  these 
melancholy  facts  being,  that  thousands  of  millions  have 
16* 


186  CONFLICT    OF  AGES. 

passed,  and  thousands  every  day  are  passing  out  of  the 
world,  in  no  state  of  fitness  for  a  pure  and  happy  state 
elsewhere  ;  0,  it  is  a  most  confounding  and  appalling  con 
templation  ! " 

It  is  perfectly  apparent  that  there  was  a  powerful  tend 
ency  in  Foster's  mind  towards  the  state  which  has  just 
been  described.  In  looking  over  the  scene  of  human  exist 
ence,  he  found  himself  sometimes  invaded  by  "  the  darkest 
visions  and  reflections"  The  whole  of  the  present  dis 
pensation  appeared  to  him  "  a  most  mysteriously  awful 
economy,  overspread  by  a  lurid  and  dreadful  shade" 
He  still  held  fast  to  the  belief  that  God  is  wise  and  right 
eous.  But  it  cost  him  many  struggles  to  retain  this  aspect 
of  his  character,  in  view  of  the  apparent  facts  of  the  case. 
"I  pray  for  the  piety,"  he  says,  "  to  maintain  an  humble 
submission  of  thought  and  feeling  to  the  wise  and  righteous 
Disposer  of  all  existence."  But  a  connected  view  of  the 
system  as  a  whole,  including  the  fall  of  the  race  in  Adam, — 
their  deep  individual  depravity,  their  subjection  to  corrupt 
social  organizations  and  to  the  malign  power  of  evil  spirits, 
and  their  mournful  history  in  all  ages,  was  to  him  "a 
most  confounding  and  appalling  contemplation" 

His  biographer,  J.  E.  Ryland,  represents  him  as  having 
here  "  advanced  within  the  awful  shadow  of  a  subject 
which  seems  partially  to  have  obscured  his  perception  of 
the  ultimate  ground  of  moral  responsibility."  I  do  not 
think  that  this  is  a  full  statement  of  the  case.  The  expe 
rience  of  Foster  originated  from  the  difficulty  of  reconciling 
the  facts  of  the  system,  as  a  whole,  with  God's  obligations, 
as  a  being  of  honor  and  justice,  towards  successive  genera 
tions  of  new-created  minds.  And  it  is  plain  that,  if  he  had 
not  found  relief  in  some  way,  he  would  have  come  into 
the  dark  shade  of  a  system  which  he  could  see  no  mode  of 


FIFTH   EXPERIENCE.  187 

reconciling  with  honor  and  right ;  and,  under  the  govern 
ment  of  a  God  whose  character,  as  he  saw  it,  he  could  not 
rationally  reverence  and  adore. 

I  know  that  the  human  mind  will  earnestly  struggle 
against  coming  into  such  a  state.  Yet,  if  the  system  logi 
cally  leads  to  it,  we  ought  not  to  wonder  that  minds  which 
have  a  strong  regard  to  logical  consistency  are  sometimes 
forced  into  it.  It  was  in  view  of  such  results  that  Dr. 
Channing  said  of  Calvinism,  "  I  know  that  on  some  minds 
it  has  the  most  mournful  effects ;  that  it  spreads  over  them 
an  impenetrable  gloom."  Such  would  have  been  its  lasting 
influence  on  Foster,  had  he  not  in  some  way  found  relief. 
But  he  immediately  proceeds  to  state  in  what  manner  he 
found  it  possible  to  avoid  such  an  entire  eclipse  of  the 
character  of  God. 

"  And  it  would  be  a  transcendently  direful  contemplation, 
if  I  believed  the  doctrine  of  the  eternity  of  future  misery. 
It  amazes  me  to  imagine  how  thoughtful  and  benevolent 
men,  believing  that  doctrine,  can  endure  the  sight  of  the 
present  world  and  the  history  of  the  past.  To  behold  suc 
cessive,  innumerable  crowds  carried  on  in  the  mighty 
impulse  of  a  depraved  nature,  which  they  are  impotent  to 
reverse,  and  to  which  it  is  not  the  will  of  God  in  his  sov 
ereignty  to  apply  the  only  adequate  power,  the  withholding  of 
which  consigns  them  inevitably  to  their  doom. — to  see  them 
passing  through  a  short  term  of  mortal  existence  (absurdly 
sometimes  denominated  a  probation)  under  all  the  worlds 
pernicious  influences,  with  the  addition  of  the  malign  and 
deadly  one  of  the  great  tempter  and  destroyer,  to  con 
firm  and  augment  the  inherent  depravity,  on  their 
speedy  passage  to  everlasting  woe, —  I  repeat,  I  am,  with 
out  pretending  to  any  extraordinary  depth  of  feeling, 
amazed  to  conceive  what  they  contrive  to  do  with  their 


188  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

sensibility,  and  in  what  manner  they  maintain  a  firm 
assurance  of  the  Divine  goodness  and  justice." 

We  are  now  prepared  to  see  what  are  the  causes  of  the 
experience  which  we  are  considering,  when  it  is  fully  de 
veloped.  They  are  these :  to  have,  from  Christian  experience 
and  from  the  word  of  God,  a  conviction  of  the  radical  facts 
as  to  the  ruin  of  man.  as  clear  and  unwavering  as  the 
belief  of  one's  own  existence ;  and,  at  the  same  time,  to 
have  an  equally  unwavering  belief  of  the  principles  of 
honor  and  right,  and  of  the  demands  made  by  them  on  God 
with  reference  to  new-created  beings,  and  to  see  the  conflict 
between  them,  without  any  apparent  mode  of  reconciliation. 

This  is  not  the  experience  of  a  sceptic,  or  of  a  caviller. 
It  sometimes  takes  place  after  years  of  deep  and  joyful 
Christian  experience  have  purified  the  soul,  and  produced  a 
full  conviction  of  the  inspiration  of  the  word  of  God.  which 
nothing  can  shake. 

In  this  state  of  mind,  and  whilst  keenly  sensitive  to  those 
demands  of  honor  and  right  which  pressed  upon  Foster,  let 
the  following  things  be  true :  that,  after  a  careful  examina 
tion  of  all  the  theories  of  the  Old  School  and  the  New  School 
divines  for  vindicating  the  fall  in  Adam,  and  its  results,  they 
are  rejected  as  insufficient;  that  an  experience  of  the 
deep  depravity  of  the  heart,  and  the  study  of  history  and 
the  Bible,  render  impossible  the  adoption  of  the  Unitarian 
theory  ;  that  the  tbeory  of  John  Foster  is  wholly  irrecon 
cilable  with  the  obvious  tendencies  of  things,  and  the 
explicit  testimony  of  the  word  of  God;  that  in  the  rejection 
of  the  Bible  there  would  be  no  relief,  since  the  depravity  of 
man,  and  his  tendencies  to  irremediable  misery,  are  as  clear 
by  the  light  of  nature  as  by  revelation ;  that,  moreover, 
there  is  no  rational  ground  for  the  rejection  of  the  Bible, 
but  full  and  ample  grounds  for  its  reception  as  an  inspired 


FIFTH   EXPERIENCE.  189 

communication  from  God; — let  these  things  be  true,  and  the 
things  of  which  we  speak  will  be  the  unavoidable  result. 

The  mind  of  any  refined  and  educated  man,  and  especially 
of  a  Christian  man,  recoils  from  the  thought  that  God  can 
be  other  than  holy,  just  and  good.  Hence,  Dr.  Channing 
says,  "We  can  endure  any  errors  but  those  which  subvert 
or  unsettle  the  conviction  of  God's  paternal  goodness. 
Urge  not  upon  us  a  system  which  makes  existence  a  curse, 
and  wraps  the  universe  in  gloom  !  " 

Yet  views  of  the  conduct  of  God  may  be  presented,  and 
for  a  time  believed,  which  are,  in  fact,  at  war  with  the  prin 
ciples  of  honor  and  right,  and  which  present  to  the  mind  a 
malevolent  God ;  and  a  consistently  logical  mind  cannot 
escape  the  influence  on  its  feelings  of  what  it  really  believes. 
Although  no  Christian  will  ever,  in  fact,  believe  that  God 
is  dishonorable  and  unjust  in  his  dealings  with  his  creatures, 
yet  his  alleged  acts  may  be  such  that  he  cannot  rationally 
be  seen  in  any  other  light.  Then  is  the  sun  of  the  universe 
for  a  time  eclipsed,  and  the  whole  system  seems,  to  use  the 
words  of  Foster,  "to  be  overspread  by  a  lurid  and  dreadful 
shade."  How  many  ever  pass  in  fact  into  this  dark  valley, 
I  have  no  means  of  determining.  It  is  not  an  experience 
that  men  are  disposed  to  make  public.  I  knew  one  man,  of 
eminent  piety,  and  distinguished  as  a  clergyman,  who  had 
had  trials  of  great  severity  from  tendencies  to  such  views. 
I  have,  however,  a  full  knowledge  only  of  what  I  have 
learned  by  experience.  For  a  time  the  system  of  this 
world  rose  before  my  mind,  in  the  same  manner,  as  far  as  I 
can  judge,  as  it  did  before  the  minds  of  Channing  and  Foster. 
I  can,  therefore,  more  fully  appreciate  their  expression  of  their 
trials  and  emotions.  But  I  was  entirely  unable  to  find  relief 
is  they  did.  The  depravity  of  man  neither  Christian  expe 
rience,  the  Bible,  nor  history,  would  permit  me  to  deny.  Nor 


190  CONFLICT   OP  AGES. 

did  reason  or  scripture  afford  me  any  satisfactory  grounds 
whatever  for  anticipating  the  restoration  of  the  lost  to 
holiness  in  a  future  state.  Hence,  for  a  time,  all  was  dark 
as  night. 

If  any  one  would  know  the  full  worth  of  the  privilege  of 
living  under,  worshipping,  loving  and  adoring  a  God  of 
honor,  righteousness  and  love,  let  him,  after  years  of  joyful 
Christian  experience,  and  soul- satisfy  ing  communion  with 
God,  at  last  come  to  a  point  where  his  lovely  character,  for 
a  time,  vanishes  from  his  eyes,  and  nothing  can  be  ration 
ally  seen  but  a  God  selfish,  dishonorable,  unfeeling.  No 
such  person  can  ever  believe  that  God  is  such ;  but  he  may 
be  so  situated  as  to  be  unable  rationally  to  see  him  in  any 
other  light.  All  the  common  modes  of  defending  the  doc 
trine  of  native  depravity  may  have  been  examined  and  pro 
nounced  insufficient,  and  the  question  may  urgently  press 
itself  upon  the  mind,  Is  not  the  present  system  a  malevolent 
one  ?  and  of  it  no  defence  may  appear. 

Who  can  describe  the  gloom  of  him  who  looks  on  such  a 
prospect  ?  How  dark  to  him  appears  the  history  of  man  ! 
He  looks  with  pity  on  the  children  that  pass  him  in  the 
street.  The  more  violent  manifestations  of  their  depravity 
seem  to  be  the  unfoldings  of  a  corrupt  nature,  given  to 
them  by  God  before  any  knowledge,  choice  or  consent,  of 
their  own.  Mercy  now  seems  to  be  no  mercy,  and  he  who 
once  delighted  to  speak  of  the  love  of  Christ  is  obliged  to 
close  his  lips  in  silence,  for  the  original  wrong  of  giving 
man  such  a  nature  seems  so  great  that  no  subsequent  acts 
can  atone  for  the  deed.  In  this  state  of  mind,  he  who  once 
delighted  to  pray  kneels  and  rises  again,  because  he  cannot 
sincerely  worship  the  only  God  whom  he  sees.  His  distress 
is  not  on  his  own  account.  He  feels  that  God  has  redeemed 
and  regenerated  him ;  but  this  gives  him  no  relief.  He  feels 
as  if  he  could  not  be  bribed  by  the  offer  of  all  the  honors  of 


FIFTH   EXPERIENCE.  191 

the  universe  to  pretend  to  worship  or  praise  a  God  whose 
character  he  cannot  defend.  He  feels  that  he  should  in 
finitely  prefer  once  more  to  see  a  God  whom  he  could 
honorably  adore,  and  a  universe  radiant  with  his  glory,  and 
then  to  sink  into  non-existence,  rather  than  to  have  all  the 
honors  of  the  universe  forever  heaped  upon  him  by  a  God 
whose  character  he  could  not  sincerely  and  honestly  defend. 
Never  before  has  he  so  deeply  felt  a  longing  after  a  God  of 
a  spotless  character.  Never  has  he  so  deeply  felt  that  the 
whole  light  and  joy  of  the  universe  are  in  him,  and  that 
when  his  character  is  darkened  all  worlds  are  filled  with 
gloom. 

Yet,  during  all  this  strange  experience,  he  feels  that  he  is 
in  fact  doing  no  dishonor  to  the  true  God.  He  knows  that 
all  true  goodness,  honor  and  love,  in  himself,  came  from  the 
word  and  spirit  of  that  God  ;  and  asks,  could  he  thus  have 
trained  me,  if  he  were  not  good,  honorable  and  full  of  love  ? 
Could  he  have  trained  me  to  hate  himself? 

In  contrast  with  this  it  would  be  appropriate  finally  to 
place  the  experience  of  one  who  retains  all  the  radical 
facts  as  to  human  depravity,  and  the  system  that  grows  out 
of  it,  but  passes  from  the  deep  gloom  of  the  last  experience 
into  the  sunshine  of  the  divine  glory,  by  discovering  a  mode 
in  which  these  facts  can  be  so  adjusted  as  to  harmonize  with 
the  principles  of  honor  and  right  in  God.  The  transition 
in  my  own  case  was  as  if,  when  I  had  been  groping  in  some 
vast  cathedral,  in  the  gloom  of  midnight,  vainly  striving  to 
comprehend  its  parts  and  relations,  suddenly  before  the  vast 
arched  window  of  the  nave  a  glorious  sun  had  suddenly 
burst  forth,  filling  the  Avhole  structure  with  its  radiance,  and 
showing  in  perfect  harmony  the  proportions  and  beauties  of 
its  parts.  But  the  rational  basis  of  such  an  experience 
needs  first  to  be  seen,  before  the  experience  itself  can  be 
understood. 


BOOK  III. 

THE  RECONCILIATION  IN  ITS  PRINCIPLES 


CHAPTER    I. 

THE     PROBLEM    PROPOSED. 

THE  reality,  the  nature  and  the  power,  of  the  great  con 
flict  which  I  have  undertaken  to  consider,  are  by  this  time 
sufficiently  apparent.  Who  can  estimate  the  amount  of 
emotion  and  of  suffering  which  the  system  of  Christianity, 
as  thus  misadjusted,  has  caused  in  minds  eminent  alike  for 
intellectual  power  and  for  benevolence? 

How  sad  to  think  of  its  influence  for  years  upon  such  a 
mind  as  that  of  Foster  !  How  affecting  the  conflicts  which 
it  causes  in  the  minds  of  ingenuous  young  men,  trained  to 
the  love  of  free  thought,  and  sensitive  to  the  principles  of 
equity  and  honor,  when  they  find  themselves  impelled  by 
these  principles  either  to  reject  facts  revealed  by  Christian 
consciousness  and  the  Bible,  or  else  to  see  dark  clouds  aris 
ing  to  eclipse  the  character  of  God !  Under  the  present 
system  they  can  take  no  position  in  which  the  action  of 
their  minds  will  not  be,  in  some  respects,  forced,  unhealthy 
and  unnatural.  To  reject  the  thorough  doctrine  of  deprav 
ity,  leaves  the  deep  moral  wounds  of  their  nature  unprobed 


THE  PROBLEM  PROPOSED.  193 

and  unhealed,  and  perpetuates  the  sufferings  which  pride, 
when  not  properly  understood  and  eradicated,  always 
causes.  To  retain  the  doctrine  of  depravity  in  its  fulness, 
and  to  war  against  honor  and  the  principles  of  right  in 
its  defence,  or  by  sophistry  to  evade  their  demands,  or  to 
sink  into  deep  gloom  with  Foster, —  either,  though  less  per 
nicious  in  its  results,  is  nevertheless  a  course  the  necessity 
of  which  is  deeply  to  be  deplored.  To  spend  centuries  in 
a  conflict  on  such  points,  without  progress,  is  certainly  a 
mournful  waste  of  energy,  enjoyment  and  usefulness. 

But  a  full  idea  of  the  magnitude  of  this  conflict  cannot 
be  gained,  till  its  historical  development,  through  a  long 
series  of  centuries,  has  been  surveyed.  To  this  survey  it 
would  seem  to  be  natural  and  appropriate  now  to  proceed. 

I  am  induced,  however,  to  defer  such  a  survey  for  the 
present,  by  the  conviction  that  a  consideration  of  the  mode 
in  which  the  system  can  be  so  readjusted  as  to  remove  the 
conflict  is  essential  to  a  thorough  and  profound  understand 
ing  of  the  various  historical  developments  of  that  conflict. 

But,  before  entering  directly  upon  the  solution  of  the 
problem  thus  presented,  to  avert  all  misunderstanding,  it  is 
necessary  first  to  state  how  much  I  propose  at  this  point  of 
the  investigation  to  undertake.  I  propose,  then,  at  this 
time,  merely  to  show  that  there  is,  at  least,  one  supposable 
mode  in  which  the  system  can  be  so  adjusted  that  both  of 
the  great  moving  powers  of  Christianity  may  be  retained 
and  fully  developed,  and  yet  made  to  act  together  in  perfect 
harmony. 

A  full  and  argumentative  consideration  of  the  evidence 
of  its  truth  does  not  fall  within  the  scope  of  my  present 
purpose.  At  another  time  I  propose  to  resume  that  point, 
and  to  enter  carefully  into  a  consideration  of  that  part  of 
the  subject.  But,  as  a  preparatory  step,  it  is  sufficient  for 
17 


194  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

my  present  purpose  to  show  that  the  solution  which  I  shall 
suggest  is  possible.  It  is  no  doubt  true,  as  will  soon 
appear,  that  the  mere  statement  of  it  will  incidentally  effect 
much  more  than  this ;  but  I  aim  not  so  much  at  argument 
as  at  statement  and  exposition. 

For  we  are  not  to  suppose  that,  in  a  case  like  the  present, 
it  is  of  no  importance  to  establish  merely  the  possibility 
of  the  mode  of  reconciliation  in  question.  It  will  avail  to 
show  that  the  full  belief  of  the  truths  on  both  sides,  which 
have  been  brought  in  conflict,  is  not  of  necessity  unreason 
able.  It  will  prove  that  they  do  not  of  necessity  come  into 
collision  with  each  other.  It  will  evince  that  there  is  at 
least  one  way  in  which  they  can  be  harmonized.  If  we  can 
also  show  that  there  can  be  no  other  way,  then  doubtless 
the  mode  suggested  is  the  true  way.  If  we  do  not  know 
this,  and  if  we  see  no  reason  why  there  should  not  be  other 
modes  in  which  it  can  be  done,  then  we  are  authorized  to 
say  that  either  in  the  mode  suggested,  or  in  some  other  way, 
they  can  be  harmonized. 

I  shall  begin,  therefore,  with  simply  proposing  a  possible 
mode  of  reconciliation,  and  defer  to  a  future  time  a  full 
consideration  of  the  question  whether  it  is  in  fact  the  real 
mode. 

At  the  same  time,  I  would  again  advert  to  the  truth  that, 
in  many  cases,  the  mere  fact  that  a  certain  adjustment  of 
the  parts  of  a  system  will  harmonize  the  action  of  the 
whole  is  reasonably  deemed  to  be  a  very  strong  presump 
tion,  or  even  a  sufficient  proof,  that  that  is  the  true  arrange 
ment.  If  a  certain  number  of  wheels,  levers  and  axles,  were 
known  to  belong  to  one  machine,  and  if,  after  repeated 
trials  of  various  modes  of  combination,  the  parts  of  the 
machine  had  never  worked  harmoniously  together,  then  the 
mere  fact  that  a  mode  of  combination  which  had  at  last 


THE  PROBLEM  PROPOSED.  195 

been  pointed  out  would  remove  the  conflict  and  develop  the 
full  power  of  the  machine,  would  be  regarded  by  all  as  a 
sufficient  proof  that  it  was  the  true  and  proper  mode  of  com 
bination.  I  cannot,  therefore,  even  state  the  present  solu 
tion,  without  furnishing  evidence  of  this  kind,  of  greater  or 
less  degree  of  strength. 


CHAPTER    II. 

METHOD     OF     PROCEDURE. 

THERE  are  two  modes  in  which  we  may  suppose  that  a 
problem  of  this  kind  can  be  solved.  One  by  a  direct  and 
specific  divine  revelation  in  language ;  the  other  by  a 
study  of  the  principles  and  component  parts  of  the  system 
itself.  We  are  obliged  to  resort  to  the  latter  mode  in  order 
to  prove  the  being  of  a  God,  and  the  divine  origin  and 
inspiration  of  his  word.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  an  unsafe 
mode  of  proceeding,  since  it  is  at  the  basis  of  all  our  belief 
in  a  God  and  in  revelation. 

For  the  present,  I  shall  consider  the  problem  now  before 
us  in  the  second  mode,  on  the  assumption  that  we  are 
allowed  by  the  word  of  God  to  solve  it  by  simply  consider 
ing  the  principles  and  component  parts  of  the  system,  and 
are  not  bound  by  any  verbal  statements  of  revelation  to 
adopt  any  particular  theory  on  the  subject. 

To  illustrate  my  meaning,  I  would  refer  to  the  true 
theory  of  the  solar  system.  It  is  now  conceded  that  there 
has  been  no  solution  of  this  system  given  in  the  word  of 
God.  The  great  Creator  has  made  it  known  only  by  dis 
closing  to  the  human  mind  the  principles  and  facts  which, 
when  viewed  as  a  system,  involve  its  truth.  By  the  study 
and  comparison  and  arrangement  of  these,  it  was  at  last 
discovered.  God,  by  making  the  system  as  he  did,  and  by 
placing  the  requisite  principles  and  facts  in  the  possession 


METHOD    OF   PROCEDURE.  197 

of  men,  did  virtually,  though  not  verbally,  reveal  to  them 
the  true  laws  of  the  universe.  Newton,  by  studying  and 
combining  what  God  gave  to  men,  at  last  interpreted  the 
revelation. 

So  I  shall  assume  that,  in  this  case,  God  has  given  to  us 
the  principles  and  facts,  which,  viewed  in  their  relations,  do 
reveal  to  us  the  true  mode  of  harmonizing  the  great  mov 
ing  powers  of  Christianity.  These  principles  and  facts  he 
has  given  to  us,  not  in  any  one  mode,  but  in  various 
modes.  He  has  so  made  the  mind  that  it  gives  us,  by  its 
intuitive  perceptions,  those  great  intellectual  and  moral 
principles  which  are  at  the  basis  of  all  possible  knowledge. 
He  has  so  made  the  body,  and  the  material  system  around 
us,  that  they  are  to  us  a  great  and  inexhaustible  library  of 
facts,  principles  and  laws.  He  has  given  us,  by  his  provi 
dence,  as  developed  in  history,  sacred  and  profane,  rich  and 
varied  stores  of  truth.  There  we  see  his  great  moral  sys 
tem  in  operation.  There  we  study  the  various  theories  of 
man  with  reference  to  it,  and  watch  their  results  as  reduced 
to  practice.  But,  above  all,  God  has  revealed  to  us  in  his 
word  facts  and  principles  of  the  highest  moment,  and  most 
extended  relations.  He  there  transcends  the  bounds  of 
sense  and  of  time.  He  places  before  us  the  inhabitants  of 
other  worlds,  and  their  relations  to  us.  He  discloses  his 
own  plans,  in  their  eternal  relations,  and  our  connection 
with  them.  He  unfolds  to  us  the  great  fact  that  all  things 
in  this  world  centre  and  terminate  in  the  redemption  of  the 
church.  He  discloses  to  us,  moreover,  the  final  and  glori 
ous  destinies  of  the  church  in  eternity. 

All  the  principles  and  facts  placed  before  us,  in  these 
various  ways,  in  fact  belong  to  one  and  the  same  great  sys 
tem,  the  centre  of  which  is  that  high  and  holy  One  of 
whom  and  through  whom  and  to  whom  are  all  things. 
17* 


198  CONFLICT  OF  AGES. 

Moreover,  in  my  present  inquiries,  I  shall  assume  that 
God  has  so  presented  to  us  this  system,  taken  as  a  whole, 
that  by  a  careful  study  of  it  we  may  learn  the  great  law 
of  its  harmonious  action ;  and  that  the  Bible  has  said  nothing 
designed  to  foreclose  this  mode  of  inquiry,  or  to  confine  us, 
by  express  verbal  revelation,  to  any  particular  theory  on  the 
subject. 

I  know  that  this  position  has  been  denied,  and  will  be 
disputed.  In  its  proper  place,  therefore,  I  shall  fully  con 
sider  such  denials,  and  endeavor  to  exhibit  the  real  relations 
of  the  Bible  to  the  subject.  At  present,  however,  I  shall 
assume  as  correct  the  position  concerning  the  Bible  which 
I  have  laid  down,  reserving  the  proof  of  its  truth  to  another 
place. 

On  this  assumption,  then,  I  shall  proceed  to  present 
what  is  certainly  a  possible  mode  of  removing  all  conflict 
between  the  moving  powers  of  Christianity ;  that  is,  between 
those  thorough  views  of  innate  human  depravity,  and  sub 
jection  to  the  powers  of  evil,  which  are  recognized  as  true 
and  scriptural  by  men  of  a  profound  Christian  experience, 
and  the  highest  principles  of  honor  and  right,  which  a  well- 
ordered  mind  intuitively  perceives  to  be  true,  and  obligatory 
upon  God  as  well  as  upon  men. 


CHAPTER   III. 

STATE    OF    THE    HUMAN    MIND,     AND    CON 
DITIONS    OF    THE    PROBLEM. 

BEFORE  engaging  in  an  undertaking  as  serious  as  that 
proposed,  it  is  important  to  call  to  mind  the  great  fact  that 
sound  logic  and  true  benevolence  are  but  a  part  of  the 
influences  by  which  the  human  mind  is,  or  ever  has  been, 
in  fact,  controlled  in  forming  its  opinions.  Even,  there 
fore,  if  I  should  succeed  in  presenting  a  solution  in  which 
truly  logical  and  benevolent  minds  would  be  united,  it 
would  not  follow,  of  course,  that  all  division  would  cease, 
but  only  that  it  would  cease  among  candid  and  reasonable 
good  men.  This  is  not  possible  as  things  now  are,  and 
therefore  to  make  it  possible  is  my  great  aim. 

But  in  a  large  portion  of  the  religious  community  there 
are  committals  from  which  it  is  hard,  if  not  impossible,  for 
them  to  escape.  I  refer  to  the  votaries  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  in  particular.  That  body  was  early  committed  to  a 
false  theory,  and,  by  reason  of  her  claim  to  infallibility,  is 
cut  off  from  alteration  or  retraction.  Moreover,  upon  the 
minds  of  many,  various  illogical  influences  still  exert  great 
power.  These  flow  sometimes  from  the  imagination,  some 
times  from  the  association  of  ideas,  sometimes  from  pecuni 
ary  or  social  interests,  sometimes  from  a  bad  heart.  More 
over,  the  solution  before  me  will  touch  and  affect  a  wide 
range  of  such  influences  and  interests.  It  is  not,  therefore 


200  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

reasonable  to  demand  of  me  that  I  shall  succeed  in  present 
ing  a  solution  which  will,  in  fact,  avert  division  among  all 
men,  of  all  moral  characters,  and  in  all  states  of  mind,  but 
that  I  shall  present  a  solution  adequate  to  avert  division 
among  benevolent  and  reasonable  minds.  Nor  is  it  a  con 
dition  that  I  shall  be  able  at  once  to  suspend  the  power  of 
illogical  influences  proceeding  from  constitutional  peculiari 
ties,  or  pecuniary  or  organic  interests,  even  among  good 
men. 

In  some  good  me*  the  imagination  is  so  inordinately  pre 
dominant  that  they  are  so  governed  by  taste  and  poetry  as 
to  be  almost  insensible  to  the  force  of  logic.  Others  are  so 
impelled  by  imaginative  emotions  that  they  have  no  affinity 
for  enlarged,  calm  and  comprehensive  logical  views.  In 
others  the  association  of  ideas  has  imparted  to  everything 
that  has  been,  during  their  education,  linked  in  with  the 
system  of  the  gospel,  such  an  aspect  of  holiness,  that  even 
errors  are  invested  with  all  the  sacredness  of  the  truths 
with  which  they  have  been  associated.  Not  only  the 
Church  of  Rome,  but  all  state  churches,  and  great  denomi 
national  organizations,  exert  an  influence,  upon  the  standing 
and  means  of  support  of  all  their  members,  so  powerful  that 
it  tends  to  arrest  or  overrule  the  free  action  of  the  logical 
power,  by  an  influence  which  is,  in  its  essential  nature, 
rather  intimidating  than  illuminating  or  reasoning.  In 
others,  emotions  of  reverence  and  gratitude  to  great  and  good 
men  of  past  ages,  emotions  in  themselves  very  proper,  are 
so  inordinate  as  to  render  them  incapable  of  admitting  that 
any  of  their  views  can  be  erroneous.  National  prejudices, 
moreover,  and  denominational  commitments,  and  the  general 
state  of  society  in  any  age,  exert  a  great  control  over  the 
action  of  the  logical  power.  It  is  not  a  condition  of  the 
problem  before  me  that  I  shall  be  able  at  once  to  suspend 


CONDITIONS  OF  THE  PROBLEM.         201 

the  influence  of  such  causes,  and  to  unite  all  men  in  one 
common  view.  It  only  requires  that  I  give  a  reconciliation 
which  is  sound  in  principle,  and  will  finally  be  recognized 
as  such  by  all  rational,  impartial,  and  unbiased  minds. 

Much  less  do  the  conditions  of  the  problem  require,  as  I 
have  before  said,  that  I  shall  be  able  to  suspend  the  blind 
ing  power  of  a  sinful  aversion  to  the  truth,  or  to  neutral 
ize  the  influence  of  a  moral  repulsion  from  the  divine 
character  which  no  reasonable  view  of  things  can  harmon 
ize  with  God.  There  is  such  a  thing  as  hating  the  truth 
by  reason  of  sin.  Of  this  our  Saviour  spoke  when  he  said 
that  men  love  darkness  rather  than  light,  because  their  deeds 
are  evil.  Pride  and  selfishness  cannot  be  practically  and 
heartily  harmonized  with  the  true  principles  of  honor  and 
right,  for  they  are  not  themselves  honorable  and  righteous. 
But  those  who  are  truly  humble,  benevolent  and  penitent, 
are  disposed  to  see  the  truth.  They  are  not  indisposed  to 
justify  God,  and  to  condemn  themselves  as  sinners.  There 
is.  therefore,  no  moral  obstacle  in  the  way  of  a  clear  per 
ception  of  truth  in  the  minds  of  such.  What  they  shrink 
from  is  not  just  humiliation  and  self-condemnation,  nor 
any  just  views  of  the  divine  sovereignty,  but  allega 
tions  which,  in  their  most  candid  and  humble  hours,  seem 
at  war  with  the  honor  and  rectitude  of  God.  From  these 
they  recoil,  from  the  very  fact  that  they  love  him  with 
supreme  affection,  and  cannot  endure  to  see  his  glory 
obscured.  Our  problem,  then,  has  respect  to  such  minds 
as  these,  and  not  to  such  as  are  in  spirit  still  opposed  to 
Go!.  It  is  in  vain  to  try  to  satisfy  the  feelings  of  worldly, 
proud,  conceited,  selfish  minds,  continuing  such,  or  to  har 
monize  them  with  statements  of  their  own  deep  depravity 
and  guilt,  and  of  the  right  of  God  to  deal  with  them  in 
accordance  with  the  principles  of  a  wise  and  benevolent 


202  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

sovereignty.  Sinful  feelings  are  essentially  unreasonable, 
arid  lead  to  a  dislike  of  the  truth  itself,  however  stated  •  and 
the  difficulty  caused  by  them  cannot  be  remedied  till  they 
are  removed. 

But  those  difficulties  which  are  felt  by  truly  sanctified, 
humble  and  reasonable  minds,  and  the  more  in  proportion 
as  they  become  holy,  humble  and  reasonable,  are  entirely 
of  another  kind  ;  and  it  is  of  the  removal  of  these  that  we 
now  propose  to  speak. 

The  problem,  therefore,  has  reference  to  benevolent,  can 
did,  humble,  logical,  well-balanced  minds,  who,  though 
keenly  sensitive  to  all  proper  appeals  to  their  feelings,  are 
yet  not  governed  by  the  association  of  ideas,  nor  by  the 
imagination,  nor  by  mere  emotion,  but  desire  to  maintain  a 
proper  consistency  and  harmony  between  their  intellectual 
and  moral  views  and  their  emotions,  and  who  cannot  rest 
in  systems  made  up  of  incongruous  and  self-contradictory 
positions. 


CHAPTER    IV. 

THE     ESSENTIALS     OF     HARMONY. 

I  HAVE  stated  the  character  of  the  minds  among  whom 
I  regard  it  as  possible  to  produce  harmony.  Let  us 
proceed  to  consider  the  essential  elements  of  harmony 
among  such  minds.  First  of  all,  then,  I  remark,  that,  in 
order  to  secure  this  result,  it  is  obviously  indispensable  to 
retain  all  the  facts  which  really  belong  to  the  system  as  a 
great  whole.  This  is  essential  in  order  to  avoid  partial  and 
one-sided  views.  The  universal  system  may  be  compared 
to  a  machine  composed  of  many  wheels,  which  may  be  put 
together  in  various  ways,  by  omitting  one  or  more  of  the 
wheels  ;  but  yet,  there  is  always  evidence  that  the  true  way 
has  not  been  discovered,  so  long  as  all  the  wheels  are  not 
included,  each  in  a  place  that  makes  it  contribute  to  the 
common  result  to  be  produced  by  their  joint  action.  Or, 
to  resort  for  an  illustration  to  a  common  game  among  chil 
dren,  the  parts  of  the  system  are  like  the  letters  which 
compose  a  word,  and  are  given  out  in  confusion,  to  be 
united  by  the  discovery  of  the  word  to  which  they  belong 
Other  words  may  be  spelled  by  a  part  of  them,  but  if  any 
are  omitted  it  is  a  proof  that  the  true  word  has  not  been. 
discovered. 

In  like  manner,  if  any  of  the  real  and  great  facts    of 
God's  system  are  omitted,  no  matter  if  the  rest   are   so 


204  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

united  as  to  make  a  system  of  some  sort,  it  is  plainly  not 
the  true  system,  nor  can  it  harmonize  such  minds  as  those 
to  whom  my  reasoning  is  directed.  They  will  desire  to 
take  not  one-sided,  but  enlarged  and  comprehensive  views, 
and  to  include  all  the  known  or  discoverable  facts  of  God's 
system.  To  illustrate  by  an  example :  there  are  those 
who  reject  the  Bible,  in  reality,  on  account  of  its  deep 
views  of  human  depravity,  or  of  future  punishment,  or  of 
Satanic  agency.  Others,  retaining  it  in  name,  on  various 
grounds  drop  many  of  its  doctrines.  To  a  truly  benevo 
lent,  logical  and  well-balanced  mind,  such  a  course  can  give 
no  relief.  It  is  merely  rejecting  a  large  portion  of  the 
most  important  and  best  authenticated  facts  of  the  system ; 
and  it  results  of  necessity  in  limited,  defective  and  one 
sided  views. 

The  system,  therefore,  which  satisfies  a  truly  logical  arid 
well-balanced  mind,  will  retain  all  the  facts  of  the  Bible, 
of  history,  of  science,  and  of  the  philosophy  of  the  human 
mind  and  body,  as  being,  in  fact,  harmonious  parts  of  the 
true  system  of  which  it  is  in  pursuit. 

Moreover,  in  order  to  produce  harmony,  the  system  must 
be  such  as  to  give  full  and  free  play  to  all  the  convictions 
and  emotions  which  it  is  the  design  of  Christianity  to  call 
into  existence.  In  particular,  it  must  allow  the  process  of 
conviction  of  sin,  humiliation  and  confession,  to  advance 
with  such  power,  and  to  such  an  extent,  as  thoroughly  to 
probe  and  radically  to  heal  the  moral  diseases  of  the  mind. 
The  theory  of  sin  and  the  facts  concerning  human  deprav 
ity  must  be  so  stated  as  to  aid,  and  not  to  impede,  the  full 
development  of  the  deepest  forms  of  Christian  experience. 
For  the  work  of  sanctification  is  the  chief  work  of  the  Spirit 
of  God,  and,  till  its  full  demands  are  met,  the  most  power 
ful  portion  of  Christian  minds  will  never  rest.  In  all  ages 


THE    ESSENTIALS    OF   HARMONY.  205 

the  channel  of  power  has  been  that  of  deep  conviction  of 
sin,  penitence  and  self-abasement  before  God.  Any  views 
which  permanently  obstruct  this  channel  will  cause  a  rise 
in  the  streams  of  Christian  emotion,  till  they  are  swept 
away.  The  fundamental  facts  as  to  the  fallen  and  ruined 
state  of  man  must  be,  therefore,  retained  with  the  utmost 
fulness. 

Nor  must  the  full  powder  of  the  invisible  spiritual  enemies 
of  the  human  race  to  flatter  and  deceive  be  hidden,  so  as 
to  allow  of  delusive  views  of  human  power  and  self-orig 
inated  progress.  On  the  other  hand,  the  need  of  a  super 
natural  divine  agency  must  be  recognized  as  essential,  in 
order  thoroughly  to  purify  the  soul,  and  to  restore  it  to  its 
normal  relation  to  God. 

The  reason  of  this  is  obvious.  There  is  a  correlation 
between  the  mind  and  God,  which  is  the  basis,  so  far  as 
the  mind  is  holy,  of  a  sympathetic  communion,  designed 
and  adapted  to  fill  all  the  capacities  and  develop  and  perfect 
all  the  powers. 

This  is  not  merely  natural,  like  the  vision  of  the 
sun  ;  but  it  is  suspended  on  a  manifesting  power  in  God, — 
such  that  he  can  reveal  or  hide  himself,  as  he  will. 

This  sympathetic  communion  cannot  be  perfect  until  the 
soul  is  entirely  cleansed  from  sin ;  for  holiness  in  man  is 
essential  to  a  true  conception  of  holiness  in  God,  as  well  as 
to  sympathy  with  it.  Every  one  that  loveth  knoweth 
God,  and  he  who  loveth  not  knoweth  not  God ;  for  God  is 
love.  Nor  can  perfect  love  in  God  be  comprehended, 
except  by  that  perfect  love  which  casteth  out  fear. 

Hence,  as  a  matter  of  experience,  seasons  of  deep  con 
viction  of  sin,  mourning  and  self-loathing,  precede  seasons 
of  eminent  and  joyful  communion  with  God.  It  is  this 
process  of  moral  cleansing  which  fits  the  soul  for  commu- 
18 


206  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

nion  with  God.  It  also  renders  peculiar  manifestations  of 
divine  favor  safe  to  the  Christian,  since  it  increases  the 
depth  of  his  humility  before  God,  and  his  conviction  that 
he  owes  all  that  he  has  of  moral  excellence  to  the  grace  of 
God. 

Edwards  says  of  himself:  "  Often,  since  I  lived  in  this 
town,  I  have  had  very  affecting  views  of  my  own  sinfulness 
and  vileness ;  very  frequently  to  such  a  degree  as  to  hold 
me  in  a  kind  of  loud  weeping,  sometimes  for  a  considerable 
time  together ;  so  that  I  have  often  been  forced  to  shut 
myself  up.  I  have  had  a  vastly  greater  sense  of  my  own 
wickedness,  and  the  badness  of  my  heart,  than  ever  I  had 
before  my  conversion.  It  has  often  appeared  to  me  that, 
if  God  should  mark  iniquity  against  me,  I  should  appear 
the  very  worst  of  all  mankind ;  of  all  that  have  been  since 
the  beginning  of  the  world  to  this  time  ;  and  that  I  should 
have  by  far  the  lowest  place  in  hell." 

To  this  the  editor  subjoins  in  a  note  the  following 
judicious  remarks  : 

"  Our  author  does  not  say  that  he  had  more  wickedness 
and  badness  of  heart  since  his  conversion  than  he  had 
before  ;  but  that  he  had  a  greater  sense  thereof.  Thus  a 
blind  man  may  have  his  garden  full  of  noxious  weeds,  and 
yet  not  see  or  be  sensible  of  them.  But  should  the  garden 
be  in  great  part  cleared  of  these,  and  furnished  with  many 
beautiful  and  salutary  plants ;  and,  supposing  the  owner 
now  to  have  the  power  of  discriminating  objects  of  sight: 
in  this  case,  he  would  have  less,  but  would  see  and  have  a 
sense  of  more.  And  thus  it  was  that  St.  Paul,  though 
greatly  freed  from  sin,  yet  saw  and  felt  himself  as  '  the 
chief  of  sinners.'  To  which  may  be  added,  that  the  better 
the  organ  and  clearer  the  light  may  be,  the  stronger  will  be 
the  sense  excited  by  sin  or  holiness." 


THE   ESSENTIALS    OF   HARMONY.  207 

This  is  but  a  natural  result  of  the  illuminating  power  of 
the  divine  Spirit,  whilst  engaged  in  the  work  of  thoroughly 
purging  the  soul  from  the  pollutions  of  sin. 

It  is  an  experience  like  that  of  an  eminent  ancient 
saint,  who  exclaimed,  "I  have  heard  of  thee  by  the  hear 
ing  of  the  ear,  but  now  mine  eye  seeth  thee ;  wherefore,  I 
abhor  myself,  and  repent  in  dust  and  ashes  ! " 

The  natural  result  of  such  seasons  of  mourning  for  sin 
is  divine  comfort  and  communion  in  a  still  higher  degree  ; 
and  such  was.  in  fact,  his  experience. 

He  says,  in  describing  other  parts  of  his  religious  life, 
"I  have  sometimes  had  a  sense  of  the  excellent  fulness  of 
Christ,  and  his  meetness  and  suitableness  as  a  Saviour ; 
whereby  he  has  appeared  to  me  far  above  all,  the  chief 
of  ten  thousands.  His  blood  and  atonement  have  appeared 
sweet,  and  his  righteousness  sweet;  which  was  always 
accompanied  with  ardency  of  spirit,  and  inward  strugglings 
and  breathings,  and  groanings  that  cannot  be  uttered,  to  be 
emptied  of  myself,  and  swallowed  up  in  Christ. 

"  Once,  as  I  rode  out  into  the  woods  for  my  health,  in 
1737,  having  alighted  from  my  horse  in  a  retired  place,  as 
my  manner  commonly  has  been,  to  walk  for  divine  contem 
plation  and  prayer,  I  had  a  view,  that  for  me  was  extraor 
dinary,  of  the  glory  of  the  Son  of  God,  as  Mediator 
between  God  and  man,  and  his  wonderful,  great,  full,  pure 
and  sweet  grace  and  love,  and  meek  and  gentle  condescen 
sion.  This  grace,  that  appeared  so  calm  and  sweet,  appeared 
also  great  above  the  heavens.  The  person  of  Christ  appeared 
ineffably  excellent,  with  an  excellency  great  enough  to 
swallow  up  all  thought  and  conception, —  which  continued, 
as  near  as  I  can  judge,  about  an  hour  ;  which  kept  me  the 
greater  part  of  the  time  in  a  flood  of  tears,  and  weeping 
aloud.  I  felt  an  ardency  of  soul  to  be,  what  I  know  not 


208  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

otherwise  how  to  express,  emptied  and  annihilated ;  to  lie 
in  the  dust,  and  to  be  full  of  Christ  alone ;  to  love  him 
with  a  holy  and  pure  love  ;  to  trust  in  him  ;  to  live  upon 
him  ;  to  serve  and  follow  him ;  and  to  be  perfectly  sancti 
fied  and  made  pure,  with  a  divine  and  heavenly  purity.  I 
have  several  other  times  had  views  very  much  of  the  same 
nature,  and  which  have  had  the  same  effects." 

Such  is  the  process  by  which  the  soul  is  conducted 
towards  perfect  holiness,  and  which  it  is  essential  that  noth 
ing  be  allowed  to  interrupt. 

But  it  is  no  less  important  that  nothing  shall  be  mingled 
writh  such  views  as  shall  misrepresent  God,  and  make  the 
system,  logically  viewed  as  a  whole,  a  source  of  torture 
to  the  sanctified  and  fully  developed  mind,  exquisite  in 
proportion  to  the  degree  of  its  sanctification.  There  is 
nothing  of  this  kind  in  God,  when  truly  seen ;  but  false 
theories  have  often  introduced  such  elements. 

The  decisive  point  of  trial  of  every  system,  therefore,  is, 
can  it  give  a  view  of  depravity  such  as  to  include  all  sin, 
and  so  deep  and  powerful  as  to  go  to  the  bottom  of  the 
human  malady,  and  purge  it  fully  out,  and  give  a  con 
sciousness  of  life  and  health,  and  of  restoration  to  its  true 
and  normal  state ;  and.  moreover,  reveal  to  man  the  true 
system  of  this  world,  and  yet,  at  the  same  time,  disclose 
to  it  a  God  such  in  attributes  and  acts  that,  in  its  most 
holy  state,  it  can  perfectly  love  him,  without  doing  violence 
to  any  of  its  regenerated  powers  and  honorable  emotions  ? 

Human  depravity  is  a  matter  of  fact  and  of  conscious 
ness  ;  and,  in  order  to  heal  it,  we  must  take  it  as  it  is,  in 
all  its  extent  and  magnitude.  And  any  system  that  cannot 
go  to  the  bottom  of  a  regenerated  consciousness,  cannot 
radically  heal  the  soul ;  and,  till  the  mind  is  thus  healed,  it 
is  in  vain  to  present  to  it  a  theoretically  perfect  view  of 


THE   ESSENTIALS   OF   HARMONY.  209 

God,  for  it  must  first  be  radically  sanctified  before  it  can 
experimentally  know  and  commune  with  such  a  God. 

On  the  other  hand,  however  deep  a  system  is  in  its 
theory  of  human  depravity,  if,  in  fact,  it  misrepresents  the 
feelings  or  the  acts  of  God,  it  must  fill  a  truly  regenerated 
and  fully  developed  mind  with  deep  distress,  because  it 
cannot  fully  love  God  without  doing  violence  to  its  regen 
erated  nature.  Let  us  illustrate  this  by  a  familiar  scrip 
tural  analogy.  The  church  is  united  to  God  in  such  rela 
tions  that  she  is  called  the  bride,  the  Lamb's  wife. 

Suppose,  then,  that  a  truly  benevolent  king,  deeply  inter 
ested  in  a  young  woman  of  low  rank  but  of  distinguished 
natural  talent,  and  yet  proud,  ambitious,  selfish  and  cruel, 
had  undertaken  to  correct  her  defects  and  educate  her  to 
become  his  wife,  and  had  so  far  revolutionized  her  charac 
ter  as  to  make  her  humble,  unaspiring,  full  of  disinterested 
love,  forgiving,  compassionate  and  sensitively  honorable, 
and  then  had  espoused  her  to  himself, —  could  anything  fill 
her  with  deeper  anguish  than  to  have  facts  stated  concern 
ing  him,  on  evidence  apparently  conclusive,  which,  if  true, 
would  prove  that  in  his  general  administration  he  was  cold- 
hearted,  selfish,  cruel,  and  devoid  of  all  sympathy  in  the 
sufferings  of  his  subjects? 

Would  not  the  very  fact  of  her  own  moral  renovation  — 
her  love,  tenderness,  sympathy,  and  sensitive  honor  —  fit 
her  for  keener  suffering  than  she  could  have  endured  in 
her  original  ambitious  and  unfeeling  state?  Would  any 
personal  favors  from  him  satisfy  her  ?  Would  she  not  say, 
"  How  can  I  love  one  so  unlike  the  character  which  he  has 
taken  so  much  pains  to  form  in  me  ?  0,  why,  why  has  he 
trained  me  to  hate  himself?" 

Yet  the  fact  that  he  had  so  trained  her  would  lead  her  to 
feel  that  there  must  be  some  error  about  the  alleged  facts. 


210  CONFLICT    OF  AGES. 

"  His  true  character,"  she  would  say,  "  must  accord  with 
that  which  he  has  taken  so  much  pains  to  form  in  me," 

And  so,  if  acts  and  states  of  mind  are  ascribed  to  God 
which,  in  fact,  logically  imply  that  He  has  acted  wrong 
fully  towards  his  creatures,  or  that  he  is  cold-hearted,  cruel 
and  unfeeling,  it  fills  the  regenerated  mind  with  unutterable 
distress.  And  yet,  statements  have,  in  fact,  too  often  been 
made,  which  legitimately  imply  this. 

God  can,  indeed,  even  under  such  a  system,  so  reveal 
himself,  by  special  grace,  that  his  real  character  shall  be 
truly  seen  and  felt  in  such  a  manner  as  to  be  independent 
of  opposing  theories,  and  to  suspend  their  power.  Or,  the 
mind  may  for  a  time  defend  itself  by  false  logical  pro 
cesses,  or  by  statements  addressed  rather  to  the  imagination 
than  to  the  reason. 

Thus,  the  logical  tendencies  of  the  system  may  for  a 
time  be  suspended,  as  seeds  often  lie  long  in  the  soil  with 
out  vegetating. 

But,  as  education  and  general  culture  and  Christian  sym 
pathy  and  honor  advance,  the  real  nature  of  the  theory  will 
be  disclosed,  and  the  mind  cannot  but  see  and  feel  the  logi 
cal  tendencies  of  the  facts  alleged;  and,  as  soon  as  this 
comes  to  pass,  it  is  in  anguish ;  for  the  system  is  then  seen 
to  be  such  that  it  cannot  find  a  God  whom  its  regenerated 
powers  can  truly,  honorably  and  fully  love ;  nay,  the  only 
God  which  it  can  logically  find  it  feels  bound  to  hate. 

How,  then,  can  a  harmony  and  reconciliation  be  effected 
between  the  facts  which  are  essential  in  order  to  reveal  the 
true  character  and  condition  of  man,  and  effect  his  thorough 
moral  renovation,  and  such  a  character  of  God  as  a  regen 
erated  mind  can  reasonably  honor  and  love  ? 


CHAPTER    V. 

THE     MIS  AD  JUSTMENT. 

V 
IN  order  to  answer  the  question  before  us,  the  natural 

course  is  carefully  to  examine  the  system  as  it  now  is,  and 
thus  to  ascertain,  if  possible,  what  is  the  cause  of  the  mis- 
adjustment.  It  is  not,  of  necessity,  anything  obvious  and 
prominent.  Powerful  systems  are  often  easily  and  fatally 
misadjusted  by  a  small  cause.  The  movement  of  a  part  of 
the  iron  track  of  a  railroad  only  a  few  inches  from  its  true 
position  is  enough  to  put  the  whole  system  out  of  order, 
and  to  produce  terrific  scenes  of  confusion,  ruin,  suffering 
and  death.  A  small  motion,  easily  and  quickly  performed, 
can  ruinously  misadjust  the  wheels  of  a  steamboat. 

So,  in  the  great  system  of  the  universe,  a  single  false 
assumption,  plausible  in  its  aspects,  and  made  without  due 
examination  and  consideration  of  its  necessary  and  inevi 
table  effects,  may,  by  falsely  adjusting  its  moving  powers, 
throw  the  whole  system  into  confusion,  and  plunge  mil 
lions  into  endless  ruin.  Such  a  plausible  but  unfounded 
assumption  I  now  proceed  to  state. 

That,  then,  which  I  regard  as  having  produced  the  great 
and  fatal  misadjustment  of  the  system  of  Christianity,  the 
effects  of  which  I  have  endeavored  to  exhibit,  is  the  simple 
and  plausible  assumption  THAT  MEN  AS  THEY  COME  INTO 

THIS   WORLD    ARE   NEW-CREATED    BEINGS       That    they  ar€ 


212  CONFLICT  OF  AGES. 

NEW-BORN  beings,  is  plain  enough ;  that  they  are,  there 
fore,  NEW- CREATED  beings,  is  certainly  a  mere  assumption. 
True,  it  is  a  plausible  assumption  ;  and  so  was  the  old 
theory  that  the  sun  revolved  around  the  earth.  Was  it 
not  obvious,  it  was  said,  to  the  eyes  of  all,  that  such  was 
the  fact  ?  Moreover,  was  there  not,  apparently,  clear 
scriptural  evidence  of  it  ?  Did  not  the  Bible  speak  of  the 
sun  as  rising  and  setting  1  Did  not  Joshua  cause  it  to 
stand  still  ?  Such  was  the  reasoning  of  good  men,  even  so 
late  as  the  time  of  Turretin.  On  this  point  Dr.  Hitchcock 


il  Until  the  time  of  Copernicus,  no  opinion  respecting 
natural  phenomena  was  thought  more  firmly  established, 
than  that  the  earth  is  fixed  immovably  in  the  centre  of  the 
universe,  and  that  the  heavenly  bodies  move  diurnally 
around  it.  To  sustain  this  view,  the  most  decided  language 
of  scripture  could  be  quoted.  God  is  there  said  to  have 
established  the  foundations  of 'the  earth,  so  that  they  could 
not  be  removed  forever  ;  and  the  sacred  writers  expressly 
declare  that  the  sun  and  other  heavenly  bodies  arise  and 
set,  and  nowhere  allude  to  any  proper  motion  in  the  earth. 
And  those  statements  corresponded  exactly  to  the  testimony 
of  the  senses.  Men  felt  the  earth  to  be  immovably  firm 
under  their  feet ;  and  when  they  looked  up,  they  saw  the 
heavenly  bodies  in  motion.  What  bold  impiety,  therefore, 
did  it  seem,  even  to  men  of  liberal  and  enlightened  minds, 
for  any  one  to  rise  up  and  assert  that  all  this  testimony  of 
the  Bible  and  of  the  senses  was  to  be  set  aside  !  It  is  easy 
to  conceive  with  what  strong  jealousy  the  friends  of  the 
Bible  would  look  upon  the  new  science  which  was  thus 
arraying  itself  in  bold  defiance  of  inspiration,  and  how  its 
votaries  would  be  branded  as  infidels  in  disguise.  We  need 
not  resort  to  Catholic  intolerance  to  explain  how  it  waa 


THE   MISADJUSTMENT.  213 

that  the  new  doctrine  of  the  earth's  motion  should  be  de 
nounced  as  the  most  fatal  heresy ;  as  alike  contrary  to  scrip 
ture  and  sound  philosophy ;  and  that  even  the  venerable 
Galileo  should  be  forced  to  recant  it  upon  his  knees.  What 
though  the  astronomer  stood  ready,  with  his  diagrams  and 
formulas,  to  demonstrate  the  motion  of  the  earth  ;  who  would 
calmly  and  impartially  examine  the  claims  of  a  scientific 
discovery,  which,  by  its  very  announcement,  threw  dis 
credit  upon  the  Bible  and  the  senses,  and  contradicted  the 
unanimous  opinion  of  the  wise  and  good, — of  all  mankind, 
indeed, — through  all  past  centuries  ?  Rather  would  the 
distinguished  theologians  of  the  day  set  their  ingenuity  at 
work  to  frame  an  argument  in  opposition  to  the  dangerous 
neology,  that  should  fall  upon  it  like  an  avalanche,  and 
grind  it  to  powder.  And,  to  show  you  how  firm  and  irre 
sistible  such  an  argument  would  seem,  we  need  no  longer 
tax  the  imagination  ;  for  Francis  Turretin,  a  distinguished 
Protestant  professor  of  theology,  whose  writings  have,  even 
to  the  present  day,  sustained  no  mean  reputation,  has  left 
us  an  argument  on  the  subject,  compacted  and  arranged 
according  to  the  nicest  rules  of  logic,  and  which  he  sup 
posed  would  stand  unrefutcd  as  long  as  the  authority  of  the 
Bible  should  be  regarded  among  men." 

But,  after  all  these  plausible  appearances  in  external 
phenomena  and  in  the  Scriptures,  the  theory  in  question 
was  a  mere  assumption,  and  its  influence,  so  long  as  it  was 
retained,  was  to  throw  the  whole  system  of  the  material 
universe  into  confusion.  Therefore,  notwithstanding  the 
reasonings  and  prejudices  of  good  men,  and  the  anathemas  of 
the  Romish  church,  it  has  long  since  been  rejected,  and  con 
signed  to  the  locality  in  the  moon  where  the  great  Italian 
bard  located  the  forged  decretals,  upon  which,  in  their  day, 
was  erected  the  portentous  structure  of  Romish  despotism. 


214  CONFLICT  OF  AGES. 

Such,  too,  may  soon  be  the  destiny  of  the  plausible  but 
unproved  assumption  that  men,  as  they  enter  this  world, 
are  new-created  beings. 

But,  it  may  be  asked,  what  is  the  injurious  influence  of 
this  assumption  ?  How  does  it  misadjust  and  disorganize 
the  system  of  the  moral  universe  ?  To  this  I  reply  ;  by  an 
absolute  necessity  it  gives  an  immediate  and  definite  direc 
tion  to  the  powerful  principles  of  honor  and  of  right,  such 
that  they  energetically  war  against  and  tend  to  destroy  any- 
radical  doctrine  of  original  and  inherent  depravity.  That 
there  are  powerful  principles  of  honor  and  of  right,  with 
respect  to  new-created  beings,  we  have  shown.  We  have 
also  shown  that  the  reality  and  validity  of  these  principles, 
in  their  highest  form,  has  been  decidedly  and  earnestly 
maintained  by  the  most  orthodox  portions  of  the  church, 
as  well  as  by  others.  And  what  do  these  principles  de 
mand  ?  As  stated  by  myself,  and  avowed  by  Turretin, 
Watts,  Wesley  and  the  Princeton  divines,  and  confirmed 
by  the  churches  of 'the  Reformation,  they  demand  that  God 
shall  give  to  all  new-created  beings  original  constitutions, 
healthy  and  well-balanced,  and  tending  decidedly  and  effect 
ually  towards  good.  To  make  them  either  neutral  or 
with  constitutions  tending  to  sin,  would  be  utterly  inconsist 
ent  with  the  honor  and  justice  of  God,  and  would  involve 
him  in  the  guilt  and  dishonor  of  sin.  Moreover,  God  is 
bound  to  place  new-created  things  in  such  circumstances 
that  there  shall  be  an  over-balance  of  influences  and  tenden 
cies  on  the  side  of  holiness,  and  not  of  sin.  Such  are  the 
conceded  demands  of  the  principles  of  equity  and  of  honor. 
If  there  should  be  any  doubt  of  the  absolute  truth  and  entire 
accuracy  of  these  statements,  let  my  readers  refresh  their 
memories  by  reading  once  more  the  fifth  and  sixth  chapter? 
of  the  first  book  of  this  work. 


THE   MISADJUSTMENT.  215 

If,  then,  in  view  of  such  principles,  we  assume  that  men 
are  new-created  beings,  what  are  the  inevitable  consequences? 
It  follows,  by  a  logical  necessity,  if  God  is  honorable  and 
just, —  which  all  assume, — that  they  have  uncorrupt  moral 
constitutions,  and  predominant  propensities  to  holiness,  and 
are  in  circumstances  tending  to  develop  and  perfect  these 
tendencies.  If  not  so,  what  becomes  of  the  honor  and  jus 
tice  of  God  ?  But  if  so,  then  what  fragment  is  there  left 
of  any  radical  doctrine  of  human  depravity,  or  of  corrupt 
human  or  satanic  influence  ? 

But  such  wholesale  inferences  as  these,  though  perfectly 
logical  and  irresistible  so  long  as  the  premises  are  retained, 
make  war  as  directly  upon  facts,  common  experience  and 
history,  as  upon  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  depravity  in 
the  word  of  God. 

What,  then,  is  to  be  done  ?  Only  two  resources  remain. 
One  is,  to  justify  the  Creator  by  devising  some  mode  in 
which  new-created  beings,  long  before  they  are  created,  or 
have  known  or  done  anything,  can  forfeit  all  their  rights, 
and  come  under  his  just  displeasure  ;  the  other,  to  release 
God  from  the  elevated  claims  of  the  principles  of  equity  and 
honor,  as  above  stated,  by  the  plea  that  such  is  free  agency 
that  they  involve  an  impossibility, — that  is,  by  so  degrading 
the  nature  of  free  agency  as  to  bring  it  down  so  very  low 
that  it  will  reach  the  deep  moral  depression  of  the  atrocious 
developments  of  men,  and  of  evil  spirits  through  men,  in  this 
world,  and  accept  them  as  the  natural  and  necessary  devel 
opments  of  free  agency. 

But,  by  resorting  to  either  of  these  alternatives,  the  con 
flict  is  not  removed,  but  rather  augmented.  The  doctrine 
of  a  forfeiture  of  rights  by  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin 
can  never  escape  the  charge  of  involving,  not  merely  injus 
tice,  but  falsehood  also.  According  to  it,  it  will  ever  be 


216  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

said,  God  first  falsely  accuses  new-created  beings,  and  then, 
on  the  basis  of  this  false  accusation,  inflicts  a  penalty  of 
infinite  and  inconceivable  severity, —  a  penalty  which  is  of 
all  evils  the  essence  and  the  sum. 

One  would  think  that  the  worst  enemy  of  Christianity 
could  not  desire  to  place  it  on  a  worse  basis,  or  in  a  more 
indefensible  position,  than  this.  The  redemption  of  the 
church  is  the  chief  work  of  God.  In  it  he  aims  to  reveal 
in  its  highest  degree  the  glory  of  his  grace.  And  yet,  as 
God  has  made  the  mind,  it  cannot  but  regard  it  as  based  on 
an  act  of  God  dishonorable  and  unjust  in  the  highest  con 
ceivable  degree.  Is  this  a  proper  basis  of  a  system  of  free, 
pure,  wonderful,  sovereign  grace  ? 

On  the  other  hand,  the  doctrine  that  free  agency  is  of 
necessity  so  imperfect  as  to  involve  such  atrocious  develop 
ments  as  those  which  make  up  the  history  of  this  world,  is 
at  war  with  well-known  facts.  It  was  not  such  in  the 
innumerable  hosts  of  holy  angels,  who  have  never  deviated 
from  the  reverent  worship  and  service  of  God,  but  are  still 
glorious  in  holiness  and  flaming  fires  of  love,  and  intent 
with  all  their  powers  to  do  his  will.  And  who  has  any 
shadow  of  right  to  say  that  the  great  majority  of  the  whole 
created  universe  are  not  such,  to  this  day?  It  was  not  so 
in  the  case  of  our  great  exemplar, —  the  man  Jesus  Christ ; 
for,  though  he  was  in  all  points  tempted  as  we  are,  yet 
was  he  without  sin.  Amid  trials  of  every  form,  and  of 
intense  severity,  he  remained  holy,  harmless,  undefiled, 
separate  from  sinners. 

But,  if  the  necessary  nature  of  free  agency  does  not 
involve  such  results  of  sin  and  misery  as  fill  this  world, 
and  there  has  been  no  forfeiture  of  original  rights,  then 
God  cannot  be  justified  in  bringing  such  results  to  pass, 
merely  as  a  sovereign,  either  by  his  own  direct  efficiency,  or 


THE    MISADJUSTMENT.  217 

by  a  series  of  natural  causes,  acting  through  the  body  or 
the  soul,  or  both  ;  and  this  is  conceded,  or  rather  strongly 
asserted,  by  all  the  leading  Old  School  authorities.  So  that, 
on  this  ground,  the  actual  facts  of  this  world,  and  of  revela 
tion,  are  such  that  they  logically  lead  us  to  the  result  that 
the  present  system  is  indefensible,  and  that  God  does  not 
deserve  the  honor,  reverence  and  worship,  of  his  creatures. 
Nor  is  it  any  relief  to  resort,  with  Foster,  to  the  idea  of 
universal  salvation  ;  for,  in  addition  to  the  fact  that  the  doc 
trine  is  at  war  with  scripture,  and  the  natural  tendency  of 
things,  it  is  no  defence  of  God  against  the  charge  of  wrong 
ing  men  in  their  original  constitution  and  circumstances,  to 
say  that  he  does  not  add  to  it  a  still  greater,  even  an  infi 
nite  wrong. 

It  is  perfectly  plain,  then,  that  the  simple  and  plausible 
assumption  that  men,  as  they  come  into  this  world,  are  new- 
created  beings,  does  so  direct  the  action  of  the  great,  the 
omnipotent  principles  of  honor  and  right,  that  they  do  act 
with  constant  and  fearful  energy  against  the  other  great 
moving  power  of  Christianity.  This  is  the  simple  and 
unnoticed  motion  by  which  the  great  wheels  of  the  ship  of 
Christianity  are  made  to  revolve  in  opposite  directions. 
That  they  do  so  revolve,  I  have  shown  by  an  appeal  to 
facts.  By  the  statements  just  made  I  have  shown  how 
that  effect  is  produced ;  nor,  so  long  as  the  assumption  in 
question  is  made,  is  it  possible  to  avoid  the  result. 

It  appears,  then,  that  the  whole  conflict  which  we  have 
been  considering  arises  from  the  assumption  that  men,  as 
they  come  into  this  world,  are  new-created  beings.  The 
principles  of  honor  and  of  right,  as  we  have  stated  them, 
relate  solely  to  new-created  beings,  who  have  had  no  proba 
tion,  but  who  are  to  have  one,  in  which  they  are  to  decide 
by  their  own  action  their  destinies  for  eternity.  In  all 
19 


218  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

ages,  the  binding  force  of  these  laws  has  been  felt  to  rest  on 
this  consideration.  If  any  person  has  been  created  with  a 
moral  constitution  tending  to  good,  and  well  circumstanced, 
and  honorably,  and  affectionately  dealt  with  by  God,  and 
then  has  made  an  ungrateful  return,  by  disobedience  and 
revolt,  then  all  concede  that  he  has  forfeited  his  original 
rights.  If  such  a  person  is  punished,  or  dealt  with  on 
principles  of  sovereignty,  all  feel  that  it  is  right. 

Now,  as  it  regards  men,  it  is  always  merely  assumed,  on 
all  sides,  that  they  are,  as  they  enter  this  world,  new-created 
beings.  This  is  certainly,  in  a  case  of  so  much  moment, 
a  remarkable  fact.  It  cannot  be  explained  on  the  ground 
that  it  is  a  self-evident  truth  ;  for  it  is  not.  Never  has  it 
been  regarded  as  such  in  the  world  at  large.  Indeed,  a 
large  proportion  of  the  human  race,  if  not  the  majority,  have 
always  believed  in  some  form  of  the  doctrine  of  the  pre- 
existence  of  man. 

Nor  is  it  because  this  assumed  truth  has  no  powerful 
logical  relations ;  for,  in  fact,  it  is,  as  I  have  proved,  involved 
in  all  the  reasoning  of  the  opposing  parties  in  the  great  con 
flict  which  I  have  described :  nor  have  the  advocates  of 
equity  and  honor  any  power  in  argument  against  the  other 
party  which  does  not  depend  upon  this  assumption. 

Nor  is  it  because  this  assumed  truth  is  clearly  revealed  ; 
for  it  is  not.  Indeed,  it  can  be  conclusively  shown  that  it 
is  not  revealed  even  indirectly,  much  less  directly  and 
obviously. 

Nor  is  it  because  the  evidence  of  the  assumed  truth  has 
ever  been  carefully  considered  and  proved  to  be  sufficient ; 
for  no  such  thing  has  ever  been  done.  In  short,  it  is  the 
most  remarkable  case  of  an  illogical  assumption  of  a  funda 
mental  truth,  during  a  controversy  of  ages,  of  which  I  have 
any  knowledge.  The  only  thing  that  has  prevented  its 


THE   MISADJUSTMENT.  219 

proper  exposure  has  been  the  fact  that  it  Las  been  so  gen 
erally,  not  to  say  all  but  universally,  assumed  on  both  sides 
of  the  question.  This  assumption  is  involved  in  the  doc 
trine  that  the  cause  of  human  depravity  is  the  sin  of  Adam, 
and  that  on  this  account  all  men  are  born  with  either  in 
herent  depravity,  or  deteriorated  or  deranged  moral  consti 
tutions.  These  things,  of  course,  imply  that  their  deprav 
ity  is  not  the  result  of  their  previous  action  in  a  preceding 
state  of  existence,  but  that  they  come  into  this  world  as 
new-created  minds.  This  is  plain  to  a  demonstration  ;  for, 
if  men  caused  their  own  original  depravity  in  a  former  state, 
then  it  was  not  caused  by  the  sin  of  Adam.  But,  if  Adam 
caused  it,  then  they  did  not  cause  it  in  a  former  state,  but 
ire  new-created  beings. 

But,  if  they  are  new-created  beings,  then  all  the  demands 
)f  honor  and  right  are  in  full  force  towards  them.  Accord 
ingly,  Pelagius  and  his  compeers  and  successors,  in  view  of 
these  principles,  have  always  denied  that  man  is,  in  fact, 
born  with  a  deteriorated  moral  constitution,  and  asserted 
that  he  has  such  a  one  as  the  principles  of  honor  and  right 
demand  for  a  new-created  being.  This  is  the  fundamental 
element  of  Pelagianism.  The  same  principles  lead  to  the 
denial  of  man's  exposure  and  subjection  to  powerful  malig 
nant  spirits.  This,  it  is  alleged,  is  not  consistent  with  the 
demands  of  honor  and  right  towards  new-created  beings. 
The  same  principles  would  also  lead  to  a  denial  of  man's 
exposure  to  corrupt  human  organizations,  if  the  facts  were 
not  too  notorious  to  be  denied.  Those  who  hold  these 
views,  however,  do,  in  fact,  make  every  effort  that  they 
can  to  present  in  lighter  shades  the  dark  colors  of  depraved 
human  society  and  organizations.  The  system  thus  devel 
oped  is  clearly  logical,  in  view  of  the  premises ;  but  it  wars 


220  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

with  the  facts  of  history,  Christian  consciousness  and  the 
Bible. 

On  the  other  hand,  those  who  assert  innate  depravity,  or 
a  deteriorated  moral  constitution,  in  view  of  fact,  scripture 
and  Christian  consciousness,  at  once  come  in  conflict  with 
the  demands  of  the  principles  of  honor  and  right  towards 
new-created  minds. 


CHAPTER    VI. 

THE    READJUSTMENT. 

IF,  as  I  have  shown,  the  moving  powers  of  the  system 
&re  at  once  and  of  necessity  misadjusted  by  the  assumption 
that  men  enter  this  world  as  new-created  minds,  then,  by 
the  denial  and  rejection  of  this  assumption,  can  the  system 
be  at  once  readjusted. 

If,  in  a  previous  state  of  existence,  God  created  all  men 
with  such  constitutions,  and  placed  them  in  such  circum 
stances,  as  the  laws  of  honor  and  of  right  demanded, —  if, 
then,  they  revolted  and  corrupted  themselves,  and  forfeited 
their  rights,  and  were  introduced  into  this  world  under  a 
dispensation  of  sovereignty,  disclosing  both  justice  and 
mercy, —  then  all  conflict  of  the  moving  powers  of  Chris 
tianity  can  be  at  once  and  entirely  removed. 

Each  party  can  retain  the  truth  for  which  they  have  so 
earnestly  contended,  and  yet  not  war  with  that  which  now 
opposes  it.  The  advocates  of  the  deepest  views  of  human 
depravity  can  hold  to  their  views,  and  yet  not  war  with  the 
principles  of  honor  and  of  right.  The  warmest  advocates 
of  these  principles  can  retain  them  in  full,  and  yet  not 
conflict  with  the  great  facts  of  human  depravity  and  ruin. 
Let  us  first  look  at  the  case  of  the  Old  School  divines. 

It  has  already  become  apparent  that  the  great  result  at 
which  the  most  orthodox  leaders  have  aimed  has  been  to 
19* 


222  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

justify  God  in  his  dealings  with  man  by  shewing  that 
there  was  a  forfeiture  of  the  rights  of  the  human  race  ante 
rior  to  their  birth  into  this  world.  We  have  seen  that,  on 
the  supposition  that  they  come  into  this  world  as  new- 
created  beings,  it  is  impossible  to  justify  such  a  forfeiture. 
But  no  such  difficulty  attends  the  supposition  that  the  for 
feiture  in  question  occurred  not  in  this  world,  but  in  a 
previous  state  of  existence,  by  the  voluntary  and  personal 
revolt  of  each  individual  from  God.  That  is  a  real  for 
feiture,  and  one  that  does  not  implicate  God. 

Let  us  next  consider  the  case  of  the  most  strenuous  advo 
cates  of  the  principles  of  honor  and  right.  They  very 
properly  contend  that  God  cannot  give  to  new-created 
beings  a  corrupt  or  sinful  nature.  Yet  they  do  not  deny 
the  general  depravity  of  man, —  so  mysterious,  at  least  in 
its  extent  and  power.  This  view  fully  vindicates  God  from 
the  charge  against  which  they  protest,  and  throws  on  man 
the  entire  blame  of  any  deterioration  or  corruption  in  his 
nature  with  which  he  enters  this  world.  It  also  fully 
explains  the  mysterious  depth  and  power  of  depravity;  nor 
does  it,  in  so  doing,  depreciate  or  -degrade  the  nature  of 
free  agency  itself.  In  like  manner  can  it  be  shown  that 
there  is,  in  reality,  no  important  principle  or  fact,  for  which 
the  various  opposing  parties  contend,  that  cannot  be  secured 
without  conflict,  on  this  assumption.  It  is,  therefore, 
entirely  effectual  to  harmonize  the  system, —  which  is  the 
end  for  which  I  propose  it, — and  is,  on  this  ground  at  least, 
worthy  of  universal  acceptance.  Moreover,  as  there  is  no 
middle  ground  between  the  two  assumptions,  that  men  enter 
this  world  as  new-created  beings,  or  that  they  do  not,  it 
appears  to  be  the  only  assumption  that  can  restore  har 
mony. 

I  am  well  aware  that  there  is,  in  many  most  excellent 


THE    READJUSTMENT.  223 

persons,  a  disposition  to  revolt  from  this  view.  But  I  feel 
assured  that  it  is  not  so  much  from  thorough  investigation, 
as  on  the  ground  of  an  unexpressed  but  powerful  state  of 
general  feeling,  that  has  been  created  by  the  course  of 
events  in  past  ages.  To  the  production  of  this  state  of 
feeling  I  am  well  aware  that  men  of  eminent  religious 
character  have  largely  contributed. 

But  it  is  no  less  true  that  good  men  aided  in  the  forma 
tion  of  the  dogmas  of  Rome,  and  of  her  despotic  organiza 
tion.  It  is  one  of  the  mysteries  of  God's  providence,  that 
his  great  enemy  has  been  allowed  to  effect  so  much  by 
means  of  good  men.  Is  it,  then,  at  all  improbable  that,  by 
his  agency, —  even  through  good  men, —  a  prejudice  has 
been  created  against  the  truth  on  this  point  also  ? 

If  there  is,  in  fact,  a  malignant  spirit,  of  great  and  all- 
pervading  power,  intent  on  making  a  fixed  and  steady 
opposition  to  the  progress  of  the  cause  of  God, —  and,  if  he 
well  knows  that  there  is  one  truth  of  relations  so  manifold, 
important  and  sublime,  that  on  it  depends,  in  great  meas 
ure,  the  highest  and  most  triumphant  energy  of  the  system 
of  Christianity, —  then,  beyond  all  doubt,  he  would  exert  his 
utmost  power  in  so  misleading  the  church  of  God  as  to  fort 
ify  them  in  the  strongest  possible  manner  against  its  belief 
and  reception.  He  would  as  early  and  as  far  as  possible 
pervert  and  disgrace  it.  He  would  present  it  in  false  and 
odious  combinations,  and  thus  array  against  it  the  full 
power  of  that  most  energetic  faculty  of  the  human  soul, 
the  association  of  ideas.  He  would  fill  the  church  and  the 
ministry  with  a  prejudgment  against  it,  not  founded  on 
argument,  and  yet  so  profound  as  to  make  its  falsehood  a  <T 
foregone  conclusion,  and  that  to  such  an  extent  as  entirely 
to  prevent  any  deep  and  thorough  intellectual  effort  on  the 
subject.  He  would,  after  succeeding  in  this,  paralyze  them 


224  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

with  an  effeminate  timidity  with  reference  even  to  any 
serious  and  thorough  discussion  of  the  subject ;  so  that  even 
men  who  are  in  general  the  boldest  advocates  of  free 
inquiry  shall  tremble  and  grow  pale  at  the  thought  that 
any  one  with  whom  they  are  associated  shall  dare  to  avow 
an  open  and  firm  belief  of  the  proscribed  truth. 

But,  if  the  Bible  is  to  be  trusted,  there  is  such  a  spirit 
employing  from  age  to  age  his  utmost  energies  in  opposing 
the  cause  of  God ;  and  it  is  and  ever  has  been  true,  in 
fact,  that  this  sublime  and  momentous  principle  of  widely- 
extended  relations,  and  of  immense  power  in  all  its  rela 
tions, —  a  principle  that  can  restore  perfect  harmony  to  the 
system  of  Christianity, —  has  been  treated,  for  long  and 
gloomy  centuries,  in  just  the  manner  that  I  have  described. 
On  no  subject  that  I  have  ever  examined  have  minds 
which  in  general  were  elevated,  free  and  liberal,  manifested 
to  such  an  extent  the  power  of  an  irrational  prejudgment, 
or  of  sensitive  and  paralyzing  timidity.  I  will  not  say  that 
this  has  been  universal,  for  I  have  evidence  to  the  contrary. 
But  yet,  as  the  causes  that  have  tended  to  such  a  result 
have  been  of  universal  operation,  they  have  exerted  a  wide 
spread  and  almost  universal  power.  Nor  will  I  positively 
affirm  who  is  the  author  of  this  state  of  things.  It  is 
enough  to  say  that  it  has,  to  my  own  mind,  in  view  of  its 
history,  a  striking  resemblance  to  the  workings  of  that 
great  and  sagacious  spirit,  who  in  so  many  other  respects 
has  deceived  and  deluded  the  nations,  in  his  mcst  skilful 
efforts  to  oppose  the  progress  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  and 
to  fortify  and  extend  his  own  dark  domains. 

For  it  appears  that  an  effectual  harmonizing  principle 
of  the  Christian  system  is  found  in  the  assumption  that  all 
men,  by  a  revolt  from  God  in  a  previous  state  of  existence, 
incurred  a  forfeiture  of  their  original  rights  as  new--created 


THE   READJUSTMENT.  225 

minds,  and  are  born  into  this  world  under  that  forfeiture. 
It  also  appears  that  to  evolve  and  defend  the  idea  of  such  a 
forfeiture  is  that  at  which  the  orthodox  leaders  of  the 
church  have  been  aiming,  for  century  after  century. 
Indeed,  they  have  —  and  very  properly  so  far  as  this  point 
is  concerned —  made  the  whole  system  of  Christianity,  as 
involving  the  redemption  of  the  church,  the  glory  of  God 
and  the  eternal  welfare  of  the  universe,  to  rest  upon  a  for 
feiture  of  rights  by  all  men  before  birth.  Before  them 
was  early  placed  the  idea  of  it  which  I  have  presented ; 
an  idea,  simple,  intelligible,  rational,  perfectly  adequate  to 
meet  and  explain  every  fact  of  the  case,  involving  no  viola 
tion  of  a  single  principle  of  honor  or  right,  and  capable  of 
a  development  reflecting  the  highest  glory  on  God. 

And  yet  things  were  so  managed,  from  an  early  period, 
that  step  by  step  the  mind  of  the  church  was  misdirected  on 
this  subject,  early  committals  were  entered  into,  and  preju 
dices  created ;  so  that,  when  the  great  conflict  came  on  which 
first  tried  to  sound  the  depths  of  this  great  question,  all 
things  were  prepared  to  involve  the  orthodox  world,  under 
the  lead  of  Augustine,  in  a  wrong  decision,  which  since  that 
time  has  never  been  thoroughly  reconsidered.  From  that 
time  to  the  present,  whenever  the  view  which  I  have  pre 
sented  has  been  brought  forward,  it  has  been,  to  a  great 
extent,  timidly  or  passionately  rejected,  without  thorough 
and  adequate  investigation.  Meantime,  when  the  difficulties 
of  the  Augustinian  theory  have  been  found  too  great  to  be 
endured,  other  theories  of  forfeiture  have  been  devised, 
which  are  no  better.  I  shall  endeavor  hereafter  clearly  to 
evince  that  every  one  of  these  theories  of  forfeiture  involves 
God,  and  his  whole  administration,  and  his  eternal  kingdom, 
in  the  deepest  dishonor  that  the  mind  of  man  or  angel  can 
conceive,  by  the  violation  of  the  highest  and  most  sacred 


226  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

principles  of  honor  and  right,  and  that  on  the  scale  of 
infinity  and  eternity.  And  yet  their  authors  were  most 
excellent  men,  and  were  aiming  at  most  benevolent  ends. 
The  same,  however,  was  true  of  most  of  the  early  advocates 
of  some  of  the  worst  principles  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  To 
me  both  cases  appear  strangely  like  subtle  delusions  of  the 
great  master-mind  of  falsehood  and  fraud. 

If  the  facts  which  I  have  already  adduced  do  not  seem  to 
any  to  justify  this  strong  language,  then  I  would  only  ask 
them  to  suspend  their  final  judgment  until  they  have  heard 
the  whole  statement  of  the  case.  If  they  are  not  convinced 
before  I  close  this  inquiry,  then  let  them  freely,  if  they  see 
fit,  charge  my  language  with  extravagance  and  excess.  For 
my  own  part,  I  feel  that,  strong  as  my  assertions  are,  yet 
the  words  of  truth  and  soberness  were  never  more  truly 
spoken  than  in  this  case.  Moreover,  I  have  felt  that  no 
less  than  this  was  due  to  a  principle  so  vitally  affecting  the 
glory  of  God,  and  yet  so  long  and  so  extensively  dishonored, 
trodden  under  foot,  and  despised. 


CHAPTER    VII. 

THE   SYSTEM   AS  ADJUSTED. 

I  HAVE,  in  the  preceding  chapters,  shown  at  large  that 
the  assumption  that  men  enter  this  world  as  new-created 
beings  at  once  causes  the  principles  of  honor  and  of  right  to 
act  against  any  doctrine  of  original  and  inherent  depravity ; 
and  that  any  effort  so  to  degrade  the  capabilities  of  free 
agency  as  to  account  by  it  for  the  sinful  developments  of 
this  world  is  at  war  with  reason  and  with  facts.  I  have 
also  shown  that  as  soon  as  we  drop  this  assumption,  and 
enter  upon  a  former  sphere  of  existence,  in  which  all  the 
laws  of  honor  and  of  right  were  in  all  respects  fully 
observed  towards  all  new-created  minds,  every  difficulty  is 
at  once  removed.  In  this  sphere  of  existence  every  man 
was  the  unreasonable  and  inexcusable  author  of  his  own 
corruption  and  ruin.  From  this  sphere  all  men  come  into 
this  world  under  a  dispensation  of  wise  and  benevolent 
sovereignty,  established  for  the  more  full  development  of 
the  excellence  of  God,  and  the  attainment  of  great  public 
ends  by  the  redemption  of  the  church. 

I  propose  now  to  consider  a  little  more  in  detail  the 
effects  of  this  readjustment  on  the  system  as  a  whole. 

I  have  before  stated  that,  to  insure  harmony,  it  is  essen 
tial  not  only  to  retain  all  the  facts  of  the  system,  but  so  to, 
adjust  all  its  parts  as  to  give  full  and  free  play  to  all  the 


228  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

convictions  and  emotions  which  it  is  the  design  of  Chris 
tianity  to  call  into  existence.  I  adverted  in  particular  to 
the  process  of  deep  conviction  of  sin,  and  purification  from 
it,  as  the  great  end  of  tho  system ;  and  to  the  necessity  of 
presenting  to  a  mind  thus  purified  a  God  whom  it  could 
consistently  love.  I  also  specified  the  importance  of  a  clear 
view  and  a  feeling  sense  of  the  presence  and  power  of  our 
invisible  spiritual  enemies,  and  of  our  need  of  the  sustain 
ing,  invigorating  and  sanctifying  influences  of  the  divine 
Spirit.  To  secure  all  these  results,  the  system,  as  relld- 
justed,  directly  tends.  We  retain  all  the  facts  of  the 
system,  because  we  exhibit  in  full  power  the  great  and 
fundamental  doctrine  which  leads  to  them, —  that  all  men 
are  in  a  fallen  state,  and  have  forfeited  their  original  rights, 
and  are  under  the  just  displeasure  of  God,  and  exposed  to 
his  righteous  judgments.  This,  as  all  must  concede,  has 
ever  been  regarded  by  the  orthodox  as  the  fundamental 
basis  of  the  Christian  system,  and  out  of  it  grows  the 
whole  economy  of  redemption.  The  whole  Christian  doc 
trine  concerning  God  the  Father,  the  Son  and  the  Holy 
Spirit,  atonement,  regeneration,  the  means  of  grace,  the 
church,  and  eternal  retributions,  naturally  grows  out  of  it  in 
undiminished,  yea,  rather  in  augmented  fulness  and  glory. 
All  of  the  teachings  of  God,  through  the  human  mind,  the 
material  system,  providence,  his  word  and  his  spirit,  it 
gratefully  and  confidingly  receives.  It  mutilates  nothing, 
it  rejects  nothing,  in  the  great  and  majestic  temple  of  uni 
versal  truth. 

But,  to  be  more  particular  : 

1.  We  escape  the  constant  and  powerful  tendency  which 
exists  under  the  old  theory  to  give  a  superficial  view  of  the 
great  facts  of  man's  depravity  and  ruin. 

A  rational  regard  to  the  honor  and  justice  of  God  is  not 


THE   SYSTEM   AS   ADJUSTED.  229 

under  this  view,  creating  constant  tendencies  towards  Pela 
gian  ideas.  On  the  other  hand,  we  are  at  once  enabled  to 
penetrate  deeply  and  philosophically  into  the  lowest  recesses 
of  human  depravity,  even  as  they  are  disclosed  in  the  expe 
rience  of  the  most  profound  and  spiritual  minds. 

The  old  orthodox  writers,  in  order  to  convey  their 
ideas  of  a  sinful  state  in  man  preceding  and  causing  actual 
transgression,  often  familiarly  call  it  a  sinful  habit,  just  as 
they  call  a  foundation  for  holy  acts  a  holy  habit  of  soul. 
But,  if  men  enter  this  world  as  new-created  beings,  there 
cannot,  in  reality,  be  in  them  anything  to  correspond  to  the 
words  "  sinful  habit."  For  they  have  not  acted  at  all ;  and 
a  good  God  cannot  create  sinful  habits.  But,  under  the 
system  as  readjusted,  these  words  describe  the  very  thing 
which  precedes  wrong  action,  and  causes  a  propensity  to  it. 
Men  are  born  with  deeply-rooted  sinful  habits  and  propen 
sities.  We  are  enabled,  also,  to  understand  the  power  and 
obstinacy  of  those  evil  propensities  of  which  the  holiest  men 
are  most  deeply  sensible,  and  why  so  intense  a  furnace  of 
trial  is  needed  in  this  world,  to  purge  out  the  dross  of  sin. 
This  view  of  the  system,  therefore,  without  dishonoring 
God,  opens  the  way  to  a  deep  and  thorough  conviction  of 
sin,  and  thus  to  the  highest  attainments  in  sanctification. 
In  short,  this  theory  enables  us  to  understand  and  to  explain 
such  an  experience  as  that  of  Edwards,  and  to  see  that  it 
could  be  founded  on  facts. 

2.  We  escape  the  constant  and  powerful  tendency,  to 
which  I  have  before  referred,  to  degrade  the  nature  of  free 
agency  itself,  by  supposing  that  such  facts  as  occur  in  this 
world  are  the  natural  and  necessary  results  of  the  best 
minds  which  God  could  make,  in  their  normal  state. 

There  has  been  in  the  church,  in  all  ages,  a  strong  desire 
to  believe  in  the  possibility  of  an  elevated  state  of  original 
20 


230  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

righteousness.  But,  with  any  even  tolerably  elevated  stand 
ard  of  excellence,  any  man  must  see  that  the  human  race 
are,  from  their  earliest  developments,  in  a  very  degraded 
state.  What  can  be  more  dark  than  the  picture  of  them 
given  by  Dr.  Channing  and  Prof.  Norton?  Yet,  if  we  deny 
preexistence,  and  maintain  the  divine  justice,  we  are  driven 
towards  the  conclusion  that  a  free  agent  is  such  a  being 
that  God  could  do  no  better  for  him,  on  account  of  the  essen 
tial  nature  of  free  agency.  From  this  fatal  and  melancholy 
tendency  the  system,  as  readjusted,  entirely  relieves  us. 
Moreover,  it  gives  us  what  the  church  has  sought  in  vain. 
The  idea  that  men  were  once  upright  IN  ADAM  is  merely  a 
shadow  of  relief,  but  has  in  it  no  reality.  There  is  no  reality 
except  in  the  idea  that  men  were  once,  in  their  own  per 
sons,  actually  upright,  but  fell  before  they  entered  this 
world ;  and  that,  therefore,  their  sins  here  are  not  the  nat 
ural  result  of  mere  free  agency. 

3.  We  do  not  ascribe  to  God  any  facts  at  all  at  war  with 
the  highest  principles  of  honor  and  of  right.  Nay,  more  ; 
we  open  the  way  for  the  presentation  of  his  character  in 
new  and  peculiar  forms  of  loveliness  and  grace.  Nor  is 
this  all.  If  I  may  use  the  language  of  painters,  we  change 
the  ground  color  of  the  whole  view  of  the  universe.  If  we 
look  at  this  natural  world  through  a  colored  medium, — 
whether  it  be  red,  yellow,  blue,  purple,  or  black, —  the 
whole  aspect  of  the  scene  is  changed.  Every  object  appears 
in  an  unnatural  hue,  and  we  long  once  more  to  see  all 
things  in  the  pure  white  light  of  heaven.  But  the  old! 
theory  is  a  dark-colored  medium.  Seen  through  it,  the- 
whole  universe  appears,  to  use  the  heart-moving  words  of 
Foster,  to  be  "  overspread  by  a  lurid  and  dreadful  shade. 'r 
Well  do  I  understand  the  import  of  those  words,  and  well 
do  I  remember  my  joy  when  that  dark  medium  was  broken,. 


THE   SYSTEM   AS   ADJUSTED.  231 

and  I  was  by  divine  grace  enabled  to  see  all  things  in  the 
pure,  natural  and  radiant  light  of  the  true  glory  of  my 
Saviour  and  my  God. 

And  now,  instead  of  a  God  dishonorably  ruining  his 
creatures,  the  mind  can  find  a  God  who  has  devised,  at  tho 
expense  of  great  self-denial,  a  system  merciful  towards  the 
fallen,  and  benevolent  towards  the  universe.  It  can  find  a 
God  whom  its  regenerated  emotions,  and  its  highest  concep 
tions  of  honor  and  right,  do  not  forbid  it  to  worship ;  and 
light  irradiates,  and  joy  unspeakable  fills  the  soul.  Such 
are  the  principles  on  which  the  last  experience  to  which  I 
have  adverted  is  based.  Such  was  the  character  of  God, 
which,  like  a  radiant  sun,  rose  upon  my  mind  when  involved 
for  a  time  in  midnight  gloom,  and  filled  my  soul  with  sacred 
joy  and  peace. 

4.  We  arrive  at  a  sphere  of  existence  in  which  we  can 
carry  up  to  the  highest  point  our  conceptions  of  the  recti 
tude  of  the  original  constitutions  of  all  new-created  beings, 
and  of  God's  sincere  good  will  towards  them,  and  sympa 
thetic  and  benevolent  treatment  of  them. 

I  do  not  mean  that  we  can  historically  retrace  and  set 
forth  the  actual  course  of  events  in  God's  dealings  with  new- 
created  beings ;  but  I  do  mean  that  there  is  nothing  to  for 
bid  the  highest  conceptions  concerning  such  dealings  that 
can  flow  from  the  attributes  of  infinite  wisdom,  justice,  honor 
and  love. 

The  importance  of  preexistence,  as  averting  a  theoretical 
degradation  of  the  nature  of  free  agency  itself,  cannot  be 
over-estimated.  Such  degradation,  I  have  shown,  is  the 
inevitable  result  of  endeavoring  to  defend  God  on  the 
assumption  that  he  has  given  to  men,  as  they  are  in  this 
world,  as  good  constitutions  as  the  nature  of  free  agency  will 
allow.  If  free  agency,  in  its  best  estate,  results  in  such  a 


232  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

history  as  that  of  this  world, —  in  such  a  development  of 
universal  and  desperate  depravity,  resulting  in  vice,  crime. 
woes,  idolatry,  and  moral  pollution,  to  an  extent  almost 
inconceivable, —  then  it  depresses  and  darkens  our  ideas  of 
the  universe  itself.  Indeed,  what  motive  can  God  have  to 
create  free  agents,  if  free  agency,  in  its  own  nature,  is  capa 
ble  of  nothing  better  than  it  has  disclosed  in  this  world  ? 
<S  But,  if  this  world  is  but  a  moral  hospital  of  the  universe, 
—if  in  it  are  collected,  for  various  great  and  public  ends,  the 
diseased  of  past  ages,  the  fallen  of  all  preceding  generations 
of  creatures,  —  then  we  are  at  one*3  relieved  from  su-jli 
depressing  views  of  free  agency  itself.  A  new-created, 
upright  mind,  may  still  be  an  elevated  and  glorious  ob 
ject,  and  reflect  the  highest  honor  on  the  great  Creator. 

Moreover,  of  all  preceding  generations  of  created  beings  it 
may  still  be  true  that  incomparably  the  greatest  part  have 
retained  their  integrity.  Compare,  now,  with  a  view  so 
elevated  and  cheering,  the  gloomy  and  depressing  theory 
that  a  free  agent  is  necessarily  a  being  of  so  low  a  grade 
that  he  cannot  be  fully  developed,  and  come  to  the  knowl 
edge  of  good  and  evil,  and  arrive  at  mature  and  stable 
virtue,  without  the  experience  of  sin.  Concerning  such 
views,  Moehler  has  well  said  that  they  make  any  doctrine 
of  a  fall  a  foolishness,  and  make  "an  entrance  into  evil 
necessary,  in  order  to  serve  as  a  self-conscious  return  to 
good."  This  idea,  he  remarks,  "exalts  evil  itself  into 
goodness." 

Hagenbach  also  says,  concerning  certain  such  speculators, 
who  seemed  to  concede  that  men  are  in  a  fallen  state,  that  the 
kind  of  original  sin  which  they  seem  to  establish  is  identic.il 
with  the  finite  character  of  the  nature  and  consciousness  of 
man,  which  is  a  matter  of  necessity.  Thus,  the  idea  of  s!:i 
and  responsibility  is  destroyed,  and  a  doctrine  introdu.-c-il 


THE   SYSTEM   AS   ADJUSTED.  233 

which  would  prove  fatal  to  all  true  morality.  According 
to  this  theory,  no  being  can  be  properly  educated,  except 
through  a  process  of  sinning.  "  Education  must  first 
seduce  that  man  who  is  in  a  process  of  mental  development, 
before  it  can  lead  him  to  virtue."  (Blasche,  quoted  by 
Hagenbach,  $  295.) 

This  is  the  lowest  and  most  depressing  conception  of  the 
nature  and  capabilities  of  free  agency.  From  all  temptation 
to  conceptions  of  this  dark  and  gloomy  aspect  we  find  a 
relief  in  the  theory  of  preexistence.  The  fallen  minds 
around  us  may  be  no  more  a  fair  specimen  of  what  new- 
created,  upright  minds  should  be,  than  the  inmates  of  a  hos 
pital  are  of  the  normal  and  healthy  state  of  the  body. 

We  now  see  that  new-created  minds  may  have  been  in  a 
high  degree  beautiful  and  well  ordered,  so  that,  even  in 
their  perfections,  there  may  have  been  an  incidental  occasion 
for  sin.  We  can  see  that  God  loved  them  all,  and  that  no 
one  ever  fell  and  perished,  except  against  his  expostulations, 
and  without  causing  him  sincere  grief. 

5.  It  presents  the  scriptural  doctrine  concerning  a  king 
dom  of  fallen  spirits  in  a  light  much  more  rational,  intelli 
gible  and  impressive. 

But,  as  this  is  one  of  the  most  difficult  and  delicate  points 
in  theology,  it  deserves  a  separate  and  formal  consideration. 


CHAPTER    VIII. 

THE     KINGDOM     OF     HOSTILE     SPIRITS. 

THE  doctrine  concerning  a  kingdom  of  hostile  spirits  is, 
certainly,  not  a  neutral  doctrine.  If  it  is  not  true,  no  doc 
trine  ought  to  be  more  decidedly  rejected.  If  it  is  true, 
none  ought  more  earnestly  to  be  defended.  If  it  is  true, 
this  world  can  never  be  understood  till  its  truth  is  admitted. 
If  it  is  true,  as  the  apostle  John  says,  that  those  most 
powerful  civil  and  ecclesiastical  organizations,  which  are  set 
forth  under  the  symbol  of  a  beast,  and  a  harlot  riding 
thereon,  were  framed,  and  are  animated,  by  the  God  of  this 
world,  the  spirit  that  worketh  in  the  children  of  disobedience, 
—  if  his  power  must  be  broken  before  they  are  destroyed, 
and  if  he  must  be  bound  before  the  church  can  reign,  then 
all  views  of  the  power  of  evil  in  this  world,  and  all  measures 
designed  to  encounter  it,  must  be  superficial,  if  they  over 
look  and  ignore  these  and  similar  great  facts. 

And  yet  the  supposition  that  men  are  new-created  beings, 
and  are  exposed  to  the  power  of  such  spirits,  although  either 
disabled  by  innate  depravity,  or  enfeebled  by  deteriorated 
moral  constitutions,  is  so  repugnant  to  every  principle  of 
honor  and  right,  that  there  has  been  a  steady  tendency  to 
disbelieve  and  deny  the  whole  doctrine  concerning  evil 
spirits,  because  it  involves  such  results. 

But,  by  the  readjustment  which  I  have  suggested,  the 
whole  aspect  of  the  doctrine  is  changed.  The  system  of 


THE   KINGDOM   OF  HOSTILE   SPIRITS.  235 

;his  world,  viewed  from  this  new  point  of  vision,  implies 
not  that  any  new  subjects  are  added  by  it  to  the  kingdom 
of  darkness,  but  that  multitudes  are  redeemed  from  it  who 
were  already  in  it  when  the  system  was  established.  s/ 

To  gain  a  clear  and  consistent  conception  of  this  aspect 
of  the  case,  we  must  enlarge  our  views  of  the  amount  of 
time  that  may  have  elapsed  since  the  creation  and  fall  of 
those  angels  who  founded  the  kingdom  of  error  and  of  sin. 
In  many  minds,  a  belief  has  existed  of  the  comparative 
recency  of  the  creation  of  this  world.  It  has  also  been 
believed  that'  the  creation  of  the  angels,  and  the  fall  of  a 
part  of  them,  but  little  preceded  the  creation  of  this  world. 
In  this  case,  the  dispensation  of  this  world  could  not  grow 
out  of  a  state  of  things  which  had  come  into  existence  during  ^ 
the  lapse  of  millions  of  preceding  ages. 

No  room,  therefore,  has  been  left,  after  the  original  fall 
of  the  angels,  for  organizing  and  extending  a  kingdom  of 
falsehood,  fraud  and  seduction ;  and  for  its  augmentation 
in  the  course  of  ages,  by  tempting  individuals  in  various 
worlds,  and  in  the  successive  orders  of  new-created  spirits. 

Now,  although  no  one  is  authorized  to  say  positively  that 
such  was  the  course  of  events,  no  more  ought  he  to  assume, 
without  proof,  that  it  was  not. 

And  now,  at  length,  we  arc  in  a  position  to  know  that,  v 
at  least  so  far  as  the  material  creation  is  concerned,  it  is  not 
as  recent  as  has  been  supposed.     There  is  internal  evidence 
to  the  contrary  in  the  very  structure  of  the  globe.     Many 
millions  of  years  must  have  elapsed  since  this  earth  was 
created.     Indeed,  on  this  point  the  language  of  geologists  is 
very  strong  and  decided,  as  the  following  extracts  from  Drs. 
Hitchcock  and  J.    P.    Smith  will  evince.     The  argument 
from  the  time  needed  to  deposit  the   various  strata  of  the  (f 
rocks  is  thus  stated  by  Dr.  Hitchcock: 


236  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

11  It  is  certain  that,  since  man  existed  on  the  globe,  mate 
rials  for  the  production  of  rocks  have  not  accumulated  to  the 
average  thickness  of  more  than  one  hundred  or  two  hundred 
feet ;  although  in  particular  places,  as  already  mentioned, 
the  accumulations  are  thicker.  The  evidence  of  this  posi 
tion  is,  that  neither  the  works  nor  the  remains  of  man 
have  been  found  any  deeper  in  the  earth  than  in  the  upper 
part  of  that  superficial  deposit  called  alluvium.  But,  had 
man  existed  while  the  other  deposits  were  going  on,  no  pos 
sible  reason  can  be  given  why  his  bones  and  the  fruits  of 
his  labors  should  not  be  found  mixed  with  those  of  other 
animals,  so  abundant  in  the  rocks  to  the  depth  of  six  or 
seven  miles.  In  the  last  six  thousand  years,  then,  only 
one  five-hundredth  part  of  the  stratified  rocks  has  been 
accumulated.  I  mention  this  fact,  not  as  by  any  means  an 
exact,  but  only  an  approximate,  measure  of  the  time  in 
which  the  older  rocks  were  deposited ;  for  the  precise  age  of 
the  world  is  probably  a  problem  which  science  never  can 
solve.  All  the  means  of  comparison  within  our  reach  enable 
us  to  say,  only,  that  its  duration  must  have  been  immense." 

Again,  he  says : 

"  Numerous  races  of  animals  and  plants  must  have  occu 
pied  the  globe  previous  to  those  which  now  inhabit  it,  and 
have  successively  passed  away,  as  catastrophes  occurred,  or 
the  climate  became  unfit  for  their  residence.  Not  less  than 
thirty  thousand  species  have  already  been  dug  out  of  the 
rocks  ;  and,  excepting  a  few  hundred  species,  mostly  of  sea 
shells,  occurring  in  the  uppermost  rocks,  none  of  them 
correspond  to  those  now  living  on  the  globe.  In  Europe, 
they  are  found  to  the  depth  of  about  six  and  a  half  miles ; 
and  in  this  country,  deeper ;  and  no  living  species  is  found 
more  than  one  twelfth  of  this  depth.  All  the  rest  are 
specifically  and  often  generically  unlike  living  spec' es ;  and 


THE   KINGDOM    OF   HOSTILE   SPIRITS. 

the  conclusion  seems  irresistible,  that  they  must  have  lived 
and  died  before  the  creation  of  the  present  species.  Indeed, 
so  different  was  the  climate  in  those  early  times, —  it  having 
been  much  warmer  than  at  present  in  most  parts  of  the 
world, — that  but  few  of  the  present  races  could  have  lived 
then.  Still  further;  it  appears  that,  during  the  whole 
period  since  organized  beings  first  appeared  on  the  globe, 
not  less  than  four,  or  five,  and  probably  more  —  some  think 
as  many  as  ten  or  twelve — entire  races  have  passed  away, 
and  been  succeeded  by  recent  ones ;  so  that  the  globe  has 
actually  changed  all  its  inhabitants  half  a  dozen  times. 
Yet  each  of  the  successive  groups  occupied  it  long  enough 
to  leave  immense  quantities  of  their  remains,  which  some 
times  constitute  almost  entire  mountains.  And,  in  general, 
these  groups  became  extinct  in  consequence  of  a  change  of 
climate  ;  which,  if  imputed  to  any  known  cause,  must  have 
been  an  extremely  slow  process." 

Again,  he  says : 

"  The  denudations  and  erosions  that  have  taken  place  on 
the  earth's  surface  indicate  a  far  higher  antiquity  to  the 
globe,  even  since  it  assumed  essentially  its  present  condition, 
than  the  common  interpretation  of  Genesis  admits.  The 
geologist  can  prove  that  in  many  cases  the  rocks  have  beer? 
worn  away,  by  the  slow  action  of  the  ocean,  more  than  two 
miles  in  depth  in  some  regions,  and  those  very  wide,  as  in 
South  Wales,  in  England.  As  the  continents  rose  from  the 
ocean,  the  slow  drainage  by  the  rivers  has  excavated  numer 
ous  long  and  deep  gorges,  requiring  periods  incalculably 
extended.  I  do  not  wonder  that,  when  the  sceptic  stands 
upon  the  banks  of  Niagara  river,  and  sees  how  obviously 
the  splendid  cataract  has  worn  out  the  deep  gorge  extending 
to  Lake  Ontario,  he  should  feel  that  there  is  a  standing 
proof  that  the  common  opinion,  as  V  the  age  of  the  world, 


238  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

cannot  be  true,  and  hence  be  led  to  discard  the  Bible,  if  he 
supposes  that  to  be  a  true  interpretation.  But  the  Niagara 
gorge  is  only  one  among  a  multitude  of  examples  of  erosion 
that  might  be  quoted,  and  some  of  them  far  more  striking  to 
a  geologist.  On  Oak  Orchard  creek,  and  the  Genesee 
river,  between  Rochester  and  Lake  Ontario,  are  similar 
erosions,  seven  miles  long.  On  the  latter  river,  south  of 
Rochester,  we  find  a  cut  from  Mount  Morris  to  Portage, 
sometimes  four  hundred  feet  deep.  On  many  of  our  south 
western  rivers  we  have  what  are  called  canons,  or  gorges, 
often  two  hundred  and  fifty  feet  deep,  and  several  miles 
long.  Near  the  source  of  Missouri  river  are  what  are  called 
the  Gates  of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  where  there  is  a  gorge 
six  miles  long  and  twelve  hundred  feet  deep." 

To  these  he  adds  nearly  two  pages  more  of  similar  cases. 

After  adducing  much  other  evidence,  he  thus  concludes : 

"Now,  let  this  imperfect  summary  of  evidence  in  favor 
of  the  earth's  high  antiquity  be  candidly  weighed,  and  can 
any  one  think  it  strange  that  every  man,  who  has  carefully 
and  extensively  examined  the  rocks  in  their  native  beds,  is 
entirely  convinced  of  its  validity?  Men  of  all  professions, 
and  of  diverse  opinions  concerning  the  Bible,  have  been 
geologists ;  but  on  this  point  they  are  unanimous,  however 
they  may  differ  as  to  other  points  in  the  science.  Must  we 
not,  then,  regard  this  fact  as  one  of  the  settled  principles  of 
science?  " 

Equally  striking,  or  even  more  so,  are  the  statements  of 
Dr.  J.  P.  Smith,  in  the  supplementary  notes  to  his  learned 
treatise  entitled  GEOLOGY  AND  SCRIPTURE.  After  consid 
ering  certain  volcanic  formations,  he  says  :  "It  would  seem 
perfectly  impossible  for  any  person,  but  moderately  ac 
quainted  with  the  visible  phenomena  of  volcanic  regions,  to 
escape  the  impression  that  myriads  of  ages  must  have  been 


THE    KINGDOM    OF   HOSTILE    SPIRITS.  239 

occupied  in  the  production  of  these  formations,  before  the 
creation  of  man,  and  the  adaptation  of  the  earth's  surface 
for  his  abode." — p.  367,  Bonn's  edition.  Of  another  form 
ation  he  says,  "  Ages  innumerable  must  have  rolled  over 
the  world,  in  the  making  of  this  single  formation."-—  p.  373. 

He  also  quotes  Babbage,  as  saying  in  his  "Ninth 
Bridge  water  Treatise,"  "It  is  now  admitted  by  all  compe 
tent  persons  that  the  formation  of  those  strata  which  are 
nearest  the  surface  must  have  occupied  vast  periods,  prob 
ably  millions  of  years ,  in  arriving  at  their  present  state." 
-p.  72. 

And  are  we  to  suppose  that  in  all  of  these  past  ages  there 
were  no  intelligent  beings  in  existence  ?  Were  there  no 
angels  great  in  might,  and  swift  to  do  His  will  ? 

There  is,  indeed,  no  reason  to  believe  in  the  existence  of 
the  human  race  on  this  earth  before  the  time  assigned  in  the 
Mosaic  record.  But  the  existence  of  some  of  the  angels 
from  the  beginning  of  the  creation,  and  the  creation  of 
other  intelligent  spirits  from  that  time  onward,  in  other 
parts  of  the  Creator's  kingdom,  to  see  his  works  and  execute 
his  plans,  are  in  the  highest  degree  reasonable  and  probable. 

Therefore,  after  the  first  creation  of  the  angels,  the  fall 
of  Satan  and  his  fellows  may  have  taken  place  in  ages  far 
remote  ;  and  through  them  the  kingdom  of  darkness  may 
have  been  extended  by  moral  conflict,  wiles  and  temptation, 
from  age  to  age.  Moreover,  the  final  destruction  of  this 
kingdom,  by  a  system  of  moral  exposure,  may  be  one  of  the 
great  ends  of  this  present  and  final  dispensation. 

In  perfect  accordance  with  this  view  is  the  prominence 
given  in  the  Bible  to  the  conflict  of  the  two  great  kingdoms 
of  light  and  of  darkness,  and  of  the  relations  of  the  events  of 
this  world  to  that  conflict.  Listen  to  the  words  of  inspired 
apostles  :  — "  For  this  purpose  the  Son  of  God  was  mani- 


240  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

fcsted,  that  he  might  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil." 
£  c  He  must  reign  till  he  hath  put  all  enemies  under  his  feet 
Then  cometh  the  end,  when  he  shall  have  put  down  all  rule 
and  all  authority  and  power."  — 1  Jn.  3:8.  1  Cor.  15: 
24,  25. 

It  would  seem,  from  passages  like  these, —  and  they  are 
numerous, —  that  the  destruction  of  the  kingdom  of  darkness, 
and  of  its-  king,  was  one  great  end  of  the  manifestation  of 
God  in  human  form.  To  destroy  his  works  He  was  revealed. 
When  all  the  power  and  rule  and  authority  of  this  kingdom 
are  put  down,  then  cometh  THE  END. 

It  is  true  that  in  the  process  of  subduing  this  kingdom 
he  also  redeems  the  church,  and  that  this  also  is  a  primary 
end  of  the  system. 

But,  in  fact,  the  great  end,  which  includes  both,  is  so  to 
prostrate  Satan's  kingdom,  and  to  establish  God's,  that  God 
shall  be  all  and  in  all.  And  it  is  by  redeeming  the  church, 
as  we  shall  hereafter  more  fully  show,  that  he  secures  both 
results. 

Now,  if  we  take  enlarged  views  of  the  antiquity,  origin 
and  progress,  of  the  kingdom  of  Satan,  we  shall  see  that 
in  it  may  have  been  found,  among  spirits  seduced  by  him 
and  his  angels,  after  their  own  original  fall,  the  materials 
out  of  which  the  church  is  formed,  and  that  the  triumph  of 
God  may  be  vastly  augmented  by  this  fact. 

He  may  rescue  millions  from  his  grasp  by  means  of  the 
system  of  this  world,  and  by  their  redemption  develop  such 
an  amount  of  moral  power  as  utterly  to  prostrate  both  the 
king  of  darkness  and  his  kingdom. 

It  is  not  my  purpose,  at  present,  to  assert  these  things  as 
facts,  but  simply  to  remove  those  narrow  views  of  the  pre 
vious  history  of  creation,  which  would,  without  evidence,  ex 
clude  the  propriety  or  possibility  of  such  a  supposition. 


THE    KINGDOM    OF   HOSTILE   SPIRITS.  241 

I  aim  to  show  that  by  the  proposed  readjustment  of  the 
system  the  whole  aspect  of  the  doctrine  concerning  a  king 
dom  of  hostile  spirits,  and  man's  exposure  to  it,  is  changed; 
and  that  the  system  of  this  world,  viewed  from  this  point 
of  vision,  implies  not  that  any  new  subjects  are  added  to 
that  kingdom,  but  that  multitudes  are  redeemed  from  it 
who  were  in  it  when  the  system  was  established. 

Having  now  reached  this  point  of  vision,  we  are  enabled 
to  take  still  more  elevated  and  enlarged  views  of  the  dispen 
sation  of  this  world  in  its  relations  to  the  past  and  the 
future  history  of  the  universe.  For  it  is  a  fair  conclu 
sion,  from  the  statements  of  the  word  of  God,  that  the  ante 
cedent  history  of  God's  kingdom  extends  back  for  ages  of 
ages,  and  that  the  results  of  all  this  anterior  history  of 
the  universe  are  concentrated  and  brought  to  a  crisis  in 
this  world,  and  that  all  the  future  history  of  the  universe 
will  diverge  from  the  results  of  the  dispensation  of  this 
world.  The  great  idea  is,  evil  entered  in  ages  past,  and  in 
troduced  a  kingdom  hostile  to  that  of  God.  The  conflict  of 
these  kingdoms  comes  to  its  crisis  here  ;  and  then  cometh 
the  end  of  this  dispensation,  and  the  eternal  state  of  the 
universe  begins. 

21 


CHAPTER    IX. 

BRIEF     SUMMARY     OF    THE     WHOLE     CASE. 
V 

FOR  the  sake  of  a  definite  and  vivid  impression,  I  will 
now  endeavor  to  concentrate  in  one  summary  view  the  re 
sult  of  the  preceding  discussions.  That  result  is  this :  that, 
by  supposing  the  preexistent  sin  and  fall  of  man,  the  most 
radical  views  of  human  depravity  can  be  harmonized  with 
the  highest  views  of  the  justice  and  honor  of  God.  The 
doctrines  of  the  innate  depravity  of  man,  and  his  exposure 
to  corrupt  social  organizations,  and  to  the  power  of  evil 
spirits,  sustain  entirely  different  relations  to  the  principles 
of  honor  and  right,  as  we  reject,  or  as  we  adopt,  the  idea  of 
preexistence.  If  we  reject  it,  the  alleged  facts  and  the 
principles  come  into  immediate  and  inevitable  conflict. 

But  if  all  men  have  existed  and  sinned,  before  this  life,  in 
another  state  of  being,  then  it  is  easily  conceivable,  and 
worthy  of  belief,  that,  when  first  created,  all  the  demands 
of  honor  and  right  as  to  their  constitution  and  circumstances 
were  fully  met,  and  that,  since  in  those  circumstances  they 
sinned,  the  fault  was  entirely  their  own,  and  not  at  all 
God's.  Moreover,  it  is  easily  conceivable,  and  worthy  of 
belief,  that  the  result  of  a  course  of  sinning  should  be  to 
leave  in  their  minds  that  predisposition  to  sin  which  we,  in 
common  cases;  designate  by  the  name  sinful  habit,  but  which 
is  in  this  case  called  original  sin  ;  which  is  no  part  of  the 
original  constitution  of  the  mind,  but  was  introduced  into  it 


BRIEF   SUMMARY    OF   THE   WHOLE   CASE.  248 

by  the  sinner  himself ;  so  that  for  it  he,  and  he  only,  is 
responsible  ;  which  is  not  an  act,  but  a  permanent  result  of 
previous  acts,  and  appears  as  simply  a  strong  predisposition, 
or  tendency,  or  propensity  to  sin. 

It  has  also  been  shown  to  be  supposable  that  the  fall  of 
Satan  and  his  angels  took  place  in  the  far-remote  ages  of 
past  eternity,  and  that  since  their  fall  other  spiritual  beings 
have  been  seduced  to  join  them  in  their  revolt,  and  have 
come  under  the  despotism  of  Satan,  forming  a  vastly  ex 
tended  kingdom  of  fallen  souls.  It  is  still  further  sup 
posable  that  God  saw  fit  to  destroy  the  power  of  Satan  and 
his  hosts  by  a  system  of  disclosures,  in  which  he  should 
enter  this  kingdom,  and,  by  a  material  system,  regenerate 
and  rescue  from  his  grasp  a  large  portion  of  his  subjects, 
and  destroy  him  and  the  rest  by  those  disclosures  of  moral 
power  that  should  proceed  from  this  work  of  redemption. 
It  may  be  that,  not  only  this  world,  but  the  whole  existing 
material  system,  were  created  with  reference  to  this  end,  and 
that  this  is  the  basis  of  the  analogies  of  things  material  and 
spiritual.  That  for  the  same  end  the  incarnation  and 
atonement  of  Christ  were  predetermined,  and  the  results  of 
the  whole  work  ordained  before  the  foundation  of  the  world. 

All  this,  on  the  supposition  now  under  consideration,  may 
be  true :  and,  if  it  may  be  true,  then  there  is  no  necessary 
collision  between  the  facts  as  to  human  depravity  and  the 
principles  of  honor  and  right  which  have  been  stated  ;  for, 
if  these  were  all  observed  at  the  time  of  the  original  crea 
tion  and  trial  of  man,  and  if  they  then,  on  a  fair  and  hon 
orable  probation,  forfeited  their  rights,  and  fell  under  the 
penalty  of  God's  law,  and  were  justly  exposed  to  endless 
ruin,  then  the  entire  aspect  of  God's  dispensations  towards 
this  world  is  radically  changed.  The  principles  of  honor 
and  right  which  pertain  to  new-created  minds  having  been 


244  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

observed,  and  all  claim  to  divine  favor  having  been  for 
feited  by  each  for  himself,  then  all  fall  into  the  hands  of 
God  as  clay  of  the  same  lump,  to  be  dealt  with  on  such 
principles  of  sovereignty  as  the  interests  of  his  universal 
kingdom  may  demand.  And  now  the  whole  aspect  of  this 
world  changes.  Man  is  the  author  of  his  original  de 
pravity,  and  not  God.  No  addition  is  made  by  the  system 
to  the  number  of  fallen  minds,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  un 
numbered  multitudes  are  delivered  by  it  from  a  fallen 
state.  What  men  enjoy  in  this  world  is  a  gracious  gift  of 
God  to  them,  beyond  their  deserts.  What  they  suffer  is  less 
than  they  deserve,  for  it  is  of  the  Lord's  mercies  that  they 
'are  not  consumed.  The  multitudes  who  are  saved  owe 
eternal  life  to  the  free  grace  of  God.  All  who  are  lost 
perish  entirely  by  their  own  original  revolt  from  God,  per 
sisted  in  during  this  life. 

But,  on  the  other  supposition,  none  of  these  things  is 
true.  If  men  are  new-created  beings,  then  all  the  laws  of 
honor  and  right  towards  them,  as  such,  are  in  full  force. 
They  have  done  nothing  before  they  come  into  existence  in 
this  world  to  forfeit  the  favor  of  God.  If  any  of  them 
perish,  it  is  the  addition  of  so  many  new-created  souls  to 
the  number  of  the  lost.  To  create  them  sinful  before 
knowledge  or  action,  if  it  were  possible,  and  then  expose 
them  to  the  malignant  influences  of  corrupt  society  and 
satanic  wiles,  would  be  at  war  with  the  principles  of  honor 
and  of  right.  And  any  dispensation  or  constitution  of  God 
which  brings  them  into  this  world  with  deteriorated  and 
corrupted  constitutions,  and  places  them  in  circumstances 
of  immense  social  disadvantage,  and  exposed  to  the  organ 
ized  and  fearfully  powerful  temptations  of  Satan,  for  aught 
that  I  can  see,  comes  into  direct  collision  with  those  prin- 


BRIEF   SUMMARY   OF   THE   WHOLE    CASE.  245 

ciples  of  honor  and  right  which  God  himself  has  implanted 
in  the  soul. 

Here,  then,  we  arrive  at  what  I  have  referred  to  from 
the  beginning, — a  possible  adjustment  of  the  two  great  mov 
ing  powers  of  Christianity.  There  is  between  them  no 
necessary  opposition.  They  may  be  so  adjusted  as  to  work 
together  in  harmony.  But  the  assumption  that  this  is  our 
first  state  of  existence  at  once  misadjusts  them,  and  causes 
one  to  work  against  the  other  with  tremendous  power.  And 
it  is  this  counter-working  of  the  two  great  wheels  of  the  sys 
tem  which  has  produced  those  lamentable  divisions  among 
good  men,  to  which  I  have  already  so  fully  adverted. 


CHAPTER    X. 

A     PRESUMPTION     REBUTTED. 

I  HAVE  already  expressed  my  views  as  to  the  antecedent 
course  of  speculation  in  the  church  on  the  subject  of  pre- 
existence.  But,  as  references  may  still  be  made  to  it,  in 
order  to  prejudice  the  views  which  I  have  advanced,  I 
propose,  before  I  proceed  further,  to  anticipate  any  prejudg- 
ment  which  may  arise  in  any  mind  from  this  quarter. 

It  may,  then,  be  said  —  as,  in  fact,  it  has  been  said  to 
me  —  that  this  view  is  no  novelty  ;  that  it  has  been  sug 
gested  again  and  again,  for  centuries  ;  and  that,  after  full 
and  mature  consideration  in  all  its  relations,  it  has  been 
rejected  as  not  furnishing  the  requisite  relief.  But,  if 
there  were  in  it  any  self-evidencing  power  of  truth,  it 
would  before  this  have  been  received,  at  least  by  all  regen 
erated  and  reasonable  minds,  even  as  the  true  doctrine 
of  the  solar  system  has  been  by  all  candid  and  learned 
inquirers. 

To  this  I  reply,  that  though  it  is  true  that  the  funda 
mental  idea  has  been  suggested  in  various  ages  past,  yet  it 
is  not  true  that  it  has  ever  been  fully  and  maturely  con 
sidered  in  all  its  relations.  On  the  other  hand,  it  has  been 
treated  just  as  was  the  true  theory  of  the  solar  system,  for 
many  long  centuries  after  that  was  proposed  ;  that  is,  it  has 
been  merely  proposed  and  suggested,  but  the  system  to 
which  it  belongs,  and  of  wThich  it  is  a  logical  part,  has  never 


A   PRESUMPTION   REBUTTED.  247 

been  wrought  out  and  adjusted.  There  is,  as  I  shall 
endeavor  to  show,  a  view  of  the  character  of  God,  which 
properly  belongs  to  this  system,  which  has  never  been 
properly  developed  and  introduced  as  an  element  in  systems 
of  theology. 

All  know  with  what  energy  the  mind  of  the  church  has 
been  developed  on  such  subjects  as  the  Trinity,  the  Atone 
ment,  and  the  eternal  purposes  of  God.  This  subject 
deserves,  at  least,  as  thorough  a  discussion  as  these,  or  any 
other  ;  for  no  other  involves  questions,  or  principles,  or 
results,  of  greater  moment.  And  yet  there  never  has  been 
in  any  age  a  period  of  mental  energy  expended  in  a  full 
and  radical  discussion  of  this  question.  On  the  other  hand, 
almost  the  entire  intellectual  energy  of  all  ages  has  been 
expended  in  setting  forth  and  defending  the  opposite 
system. 

Such  being  the  facts,  till  this  view  has  been  fully 
considered  there  can  be  no  presumptive  argument  against 
it  from  the  fact  that  it  has  not  been  generally  adopted. 
The  theory  that  the  sun,  and  not  the  earth,  was  the  centre 
of  the  solar  system,  was  rejected  for  ages,  simply  because  it 
was  not  thoroughly  looked  into,  although  often  suggested  ; 
and  has  been  adopted  only  within  a  few  centuries,  and 
solely  in  consequence  of  a  general,  profound  and  radical 
investigation  of  it,  in  all  its  relations  to  existing  facts. 
Before  this,  the  mathematical  talent  of  the  world  was  em 
ployed  to  expound  and  defend  the  geocentric  theory,  with 
its  cycles  and  epicycles. 

The  following  extract  from  "  Whe well's  History  of  the 
Inductive  Sciences"  will  place  this  subject  in  its  true  light : 

"  The  doctrine  of  Copernicus,  that  the  sun  is  the  truo 
centre  of  the  celestial  motions,  depends  primarily  upon  the 
consideration  that  such  a  supposition  explains  very  simply 


248  CONFLICT    OF   AtfES. 

and  completely  all  the  obvious  appearances  of  the  heavens. 
In  order  to  see  that  it  does  this,  nothing  more  is  requisite 
than  a  distinct  conception  of  the  nature  of  relative  motion, 
and  a  knowledge  of  the  principal  astronomical  phenomena. 
There  was,  therefore,  no  reason  why  such  a  doctrine  might 
not  be  discovered, — that  is,  suggested  as  a  theory  plausible 
at  first  sight, — long  before  the  time  of  Copernicus ;  or,  rather, 
it  was  inevitable  that  this  guess,  among  others,  should  be 
propounded  as  a  solution  of  the  appearances  of  the  heavens. 
We  are  not,  therefore,  to  be  surprised,  if  we  find,  in  the 
earliest  times  of  astronomy,  and  at  various  succeeding 
periods,  such  a  system  spoken  of  by  astronomers,  and 
maintained  by  some  as  true,  though  rejected  by  the 
majority,  and  by  the  principal  writers." 

He  then  proceeds  to  show  how  the  application  of  mathe 
matical  talent  to  the  geocentric  theory  (that  which  places 
the  earth  in  the  centre)  gave  it  an  apparent  superiority,  by 
means  of  the  theory  of  eccentrics  and  epicycles,  to  the 
heliocentric  theory  (that  which  places  the  sun  in  the 
centre).  He  then  adds,  "  It  is  true  that  all  the  contriv 
ances  of  epicycles,  and  the  like,  by  which  the  geocentric 
hypothesis  was  made  to  represent  the  phenomena,  were  sus 
ceptible  of  an  easy  adaptation  to  a  heliocentric  method, 
when  a  good  mathematician  had  once  proposed  to  him 
self  the  problem  ;  and  this  was  precisely  what  Copernicus 
undertook  and  executed.  But,  till  the  appearance  of  his 
work,  the  heliocentric  system  had  never  come  before  the 
world,  except  as  a  hasty  and  imperfect  hypothesis ;  which 
bore  a  favorable  comparison  with  the  phenomena,  so  long 
as  their  general  features  only  were  known ;  but  which  had 
been  completely  thrown  into  the  shade  by  the  labor  and  intel 
ligence  bestowed  upon  the  Hipparchian  or  Ptolemaic  theories 
by  a  long  series  of  great  astronomers  of  all  countries. ^ 


A   PRESUMPTION    REBUTTED.  249 

He  then  proceeds  to  state  at  some  length  the  evidence  of 
the  fact  that,  whilst  all  the  mathematical  talent  of  the  world 
was  employed  in  developing  and  defending  a  false  theory 
of  the  universe,  yet  the  true  theory  had  been  often  and 
clearly  suggested.  He  remarks,  "  It  is  curious  to  trace 
the  early  and  repeated  manifestations  of  this  view  of  the 
universe.  Its  distinct  assertion  among  the  Greeks  is  an 
evidence  of  the  clearness  of  their  thoughts,  and  the  vigor 
of  their  minds ;  and  it  is  a  proof  of  the  feebleness  and 
servility  of  intellect  in  the  stationary  period^  that,  till  the 
period  of  Copernicus,  no  one  was  found  to  try  the  fortune 
of  this  hypothesis ,  modified  according  to  the  improved 
astronomical  knowledge  of  the  time. 

"  The  most  ancient  of  the  Greek  philosophers  to  whom  the 
ancients  ascribe  the  heliocentric  doctrine  is  Pythagoras  ; 
but  Diogenes  Laertius  makes  Philolaus,  one  of  the  follow 
ers  of  Pythagoras,  the  first  author  of  this  doctrine.  We 
learn  from  Archimedes  that  it  was  held  by  his  contempo 
rary,  Aristarchus.  'Aristarchus  of  Samos,'  says  he, 
1  makes  this  supposition,  that  the  fixed  stars  and  the  sun 
remain  at  rest,  and  that  the  earth  revolves  round  the  sun 
in  a  circle.'  Plutarch  asserts  that  this,  which  was  only  a 
hypothesis  in  the  hands  of  Aristarchus,  was  proved  by 
Seleucus ;  but  we  may  venture  to  say  that,  at  that  time,  no 
such  proof  was  possible.  Aristotle  had  recognized  the  ex 
istence  of  this  doctrine  by  arguing  against  it.  l  All  things,' 
says  he,  '  tend  to  the  centre  of  the  earth,  and  rest  there, 
and  therefore  the  whole  mass  of  the  earth  cannot  rest  ex 
cept  there.'  Ptolemy  had  in  like  manner  argued  against 
the  diurnal  motion  of  the  earth  :  such  a  revolution  would, 
he  urged,  disperse  into  surrounding  space  all  the  loose  parts 
of  the  earth.  Yet  he  allowed  that  such  a  supposition  would 
facilitate  the  explanation  of  some  phenomena,  Cicero 


250  CONFLICT   OF    AGES. 

appears  to  make  Mercury  and  Venus  revolve  about  the  sun, 
as  does  Martianus  Capella  at  a  later  period ;  and  Seneca 
says,  it  is  a  worthy  subject  of  contemplation,  whether  the 
earth  be  at  rest  or  in  motion :  but  at  this  period,  as  we  may 
see  from  Seneca  himself,  that  habit  of  intellect  which  was 
requisite  for  the  solution  of  such  a  question  had  been  suc 
ceeded  by  indistinct  views  and  rhetorical  forms  of  speech. 
If  there  were  any  good  mathematicians  and  good  ob 
servers  at  this  period,  they  were  employed  in  cultivating 
and  verifying  the  Hipparchian  theory. 

1  i  Next  to  the  Greeks,  the  Indians  appear  to  have  pos 
sessed  that  original  vigor  and  clearness  of  thought  from 
which  true  science  springs.  It  is  remarkable  that  the 
Indians,  also,  had  their  heliocentric  theorists.  Aryabatta 
(A.  D.  1322),  and  other  astronomers  of  that  country,  are 
said  to  have  advocated  the  doctrine  of  the  earth's  revolution 
on  its  axis  ;  which  opinion,  however,  was  rejected  by  sub 
sequent  philosophers  among  the  Hindoos. 

' l  Some  writers  have  thought  that  the  heliocentric  doctrine 
was  derived,  by  Pythagoras  and  other  European  philoso 
phers,  from  some  of  the  oriental  nations.  This  opinion, 
however,  will  appear  to  have  little  weight,  if  we  consider 
that  the  heliocentric  hypothesis,  in  the  only  shape  in  which 
the  ancients  knew  it,  was  too  obvious  to  require  much 
teaching ;  that  it  did  not,  and  could  not,  so  far  as  we  know, 
receive  any  additional  strength  from  anything  which  the 
oriental  nations  could  teach  ;  and  that  each  astronomer  was 
induced  to  adopt  or  reject  it,  not  by  any  information  which 
a  master  could  give  him,  but  by  his  love  of  geometrical  sim 
plicity  on  the  one  hand,  or  the  prejudices  of  sense  on  the 
other.  Real  science,  depending  on  a  clear  view  of  the 
relation  of  phenomena  to  general  theoretical  ideas,  cannot 
be  communicated  in  the  way  of  secret  and  exclusive  tradi- 


A    PRESUMPTION    REBUTTED.  251 

tions.  like  the  mysteries  of  certain  arts  and  crafts.  If  the 
philosopher  do  not  see  that  the  theory  is  true,  he  is  little 
the  better  for  having  heard  or  read  the  words  which  assert 
its  truth. 

"It  is  impossible,  therefore,  to  assent  to  those  views 
which  would  discover  in  the  heliocentric  doctrines  of  the 
ancients  traces  of  a  more  profound  astronomy  than  any 
which  they  have  transmitted  to  us.  Those  doctrines  were 
merely  the  plausible  conjectures  of  men  with  sound  geom 
etrical  notions  ;  but  they  were  never  extended  so  as  to 
embrace  the  details  of  the  existing  astronomical  ktiowl- 
edge ;  and  perhaps  we  may  say  that  the  analysis  of  the 
phenomena  into  the  arrangements  of  the  Ptolemaic  system 
was  so  much  more  obvious  than  any  other,  that  it  must 
necessarily  come  first,  in  order  to  form  an  introduction  to 
the  Copernican." 

Now,  I  freely  admit  that  the  common  theory  of  the  moral 
system,  at  first  sight,  did  seem  to  be  suggested  by  some 
passages  of  scripture,  just  as  was  the  geocentric  theory  of 
the  material  universe.  Moreover,  it  seemed  to  account  for 
the  fundamental  facts  of  the  Christian  system,  just  as  the 
geocentric  theory  seemed  to  account  for  the  phenomena 
of  the  solar  system.  Hence,  it  being  hastily  assumed 
that  the  Bible  teaches  it,  all  the  energy  of  evangelical 
divines  has  been  put  forth  to  explain  and  defend  it.  It  has, 
indeed,  not  been  denied  that  the  theory  of  preexistence 
would  also  explain  the  facts  of  native  and  entire  depravity, 
and  relieve  some  difficulties.  But  it  has  been  for  the  most 
part  summarily  rejected,  just  as  was  the  heliocentric 
theory,  and  for  the  same  reason.  Eminent  divines  have 
never  thoroughly  considered  its  scriptural  relations,  and 
undertaken  and  thoroughly  executed  the  problem  of  develop- 


252  CONFLICT    OF    AC.E3. 

ing  the  system  to  which  it  belongs,  so  ns  to  embrace  the 
details  of  the  existing  theological  knowledge. 

Perhaps,  too,  in  this,  as  in  the  other  case,  the  energetic 
investigations  of  the  advocates  of  the  old  system  were 
allowed  to  exist,  as  an  introduction  to  a  new  and  better  sys 
tem.  We  have,  at  least,  been  enabled  by  them  to  see  what 
is  the  best  that  can  be  said  in  its  behalf;  and  we  have  had 
full  and  ample  opportunity  to  study  its  operation  on  indi 
viduals  and  on  society. 

It  would  have  been  well  if  the  theory  of  preexistence  had 
suffered  merely  from  neglect,  as  above  stated.  But,  in 
addition  to  this,  prejudice  was  awakened  against  it,  by  the 
errors  and  eccentricities  of  some  of  its  early  defenders.  Of 
these,  perhaps  no  one  was  more  conspicuous  than  Origen. 
He,  by  his  unsound  views  on  many  points,  and  by  associat 
ing  preexistence  with  a  false  philosophical  theory  of  the 
universe,  created  in  many  minds  a  prejudice  against  the 
idea  itself.  To  this  I  shall  advert  again,  in  its  place. 

Thus  have  I  endeavored  to  state  the  principles  of  the 
reconciliation  of  the  contending  powers  of  Christianity  which 
I  propose.  We  are  now  prepared  to  enter  upon  a  consider 
ation  of  a  historical  analysis  of  the  course  of  the  great  con 
flict  which  has  been  spoken  of  as  existing  during  a  long 
series  of  ages. 


BOOK  IV. 

HISTORICAL  OUTLINE  AND  ESTIMATE  OF 
THE  CONFLICT. 


CHAPTER    I. 

GENERAL    OUTLINE. 

WHEN  we  turn  from  the  interests  and  controversies  of 
the  present  generation,  and  undertake  to  survey  those  of 
past  ages,  we  seem  at  first  to  be  entering  upon  a  boundless 
ocean,  of  difficult  and  perilous  navigation.  But,  after  a  lit 
tle  experience,  we  find  that  the  ocean  is  not  illimitable,  and 
that  its  navigation  is  by  no  means  as  difficult  or  hazardous 
as  at  first  appeared.  We  soon  find  a  compass  and  a  chart ; 
and,  aided  by  the  favoring  gales  of  the  spirit,  we  safely  and 
happily  complete  our  voyage.  We  find,  too,  that  such  a 
voyage  is  not  in  vain.  We  find  more  than  dry  dogmas  and 
obsolete  creeds  to  bring  home  with  us,  as  the  fruits  of  our 
adventures.  We  find  that  the  history  of  thought  and  emo 
tion  in  the  church  of  God,  in  all  ages,  has  a  vital  relation 
to  the  condition  and  interests  of  the  present  age ;  and  that 
the  future  is  not  to  be  separated  from  the  past  by  an  abrupt 
interval,  but  to  have  its  roots  in  it,  and  to  grow  out  of  it 
with  a  mature  and  healthy  growth. 
22 


254  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

We  have  seen  that  the  careful  study  and  development  of 
the  false  theories  of  the  material  universe  was,  in  the  judg 
ment  of  Whewell,  an  important  preparation  for  the  develop 
ment  of  the  true  theory.  In  like  manner,  it  may  be  true 
that  the  energetic  investigations  of  false  theories  of  the  sys 
tem  of  the  moral  universe  were  needed,  and  were  designed 
by  God  as  an  introduction  to  a  new  and  better  system.  We 
have,  at  least,  thereby  been  enabled  to  see  what  is  the  best 
that  can  be  said  in  behalf  of  those  theories,  and  have  had 
ample  opportunity  to  study  their  intellectual  and  moral 
influences  on  individuals  and  on  society. 

So  far  as  I  know,  no  complete  and  philosophical  history 
of  this  great  conflict  of  ages  has  ever  been  written,  although 
many  and  important  elements  of  it  are  contained  in  the  vari 
ous  learned  and  able  histories  of  the  church,  and  of  dog 
matic  theology,  which  have  from  time  to  time  appeared. 

Whenever  such  a  history  shall  be  fairly  written,  it  will, 
I  am  assured,  clearly  evince  that  the  principles  of  honor  and 
of  right,  as  I  have  stated  them,  have  been  recognized  in 
every  age  ;  but  that,  so  long  as  it  has  been  assumed  that 
this  is  our  first  state  of  existence,  the  course  of  events  has 
been  this :  First,  that  these  principles  have,  in  some  minds, 
given  rise  to  superficial  views  of  human  depravity,  which 
are  not  adapted  to  produce  a  deep  Christian  experience. 
Then,  that  against  these  views,  from  time  to  time,  men, 
actuated  by  a  profound  Christian  consciousness,  have 
reacted,  and  endeavored  to  promulgate  and  defend  deeper 
views  of  the  great  facts  concerning  the  depravity  of  man, 
and  his  exposure  to  unseen  and  powerful  spirits  of  evil 
but  that,  nevertheless,  in  so  doing  they  have  made  a  pain 
ful  war  upon  the  most  obvious  and  sacred  principles  of 
honor  and  right ;  and  that  every  effort  to  remove  this  con 
trariety,  made  during  the  course  of  more  than  fifteen  cen- 


GENERAL    OUTLINE.  255 

turies,  has  been  in  vain.  The  study  of  such  a  history  would 
be  eminently  salutary.  It  would  enable  us  to  avoid  all 
a  priori  and  abstract  theorizing,  and  to  consider  the  simple 
question,  what,  in  fact,  have  been  the  developments  of  the 
human  mind,  under  the  common  assumption  that  this  is  our 
first  state  of  existence,  and  that  the  fall  of  x\dam  is,  in 
some  way,  the  cause  of  the  sinfulness  of  the  human  race. 
Such  a  review  would  powerfully  confirm  our  previously- 
announced  conclusion,  that  the  conflict  of  principles,  which 
I  have  in  this  work  asserted  to  exist,  is  a  reality ;  that  the 
two  great  working  powers  of  Christianity  are  in  fact  mis- 
adjusted,  and  do  work  against  each  other;  and  that  they  can 
never  be  made  to  work  together,  on  the  assumption  that  this 
is  our  first  state  of  existence. 

A  history  of  the  kind  to  which  I  have  adverted  ought  to 
contain  a  full  view  of  the  manifestations  and  phases  of  this 
great  controversy,  as  seen  in  at  least  the  following  theolog 
ical  developments : 

1.  The  doctrines  and  speculations  of  the  period  anterior 
to   Augustine,    on  the   sinful  condition   of   man    and  his 
redemption  through  Christ. 

2.  The  great  Augustinian  and  Pelagian  controversy. 

3.  The  Semipelagian  controversies,  till  the  tenth  cen 
tury. 

4.  The  controversies  of  the  schoolmen,  upon  the  same 
topics,  until  the  Reformation. 

5.  The  discussions  and  decisions  of  the  Reformers. 

6.  The  debates  and  decisions  of  the  council  of  Trent,  and 
the  subsequent  controversies  in  the  Romish  church,  e.  g. 
in  the  case  of  Baius,  of  Molina,  and  of  the  Jansenists. 

7.  The  Arminian  controversy  in  Europe  and  America. 

8.  The  Socinian  controversy  on  these  prints,  soon  after 
the  opening  of  the  Reformation. 


256  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

9.  The  assaults  of  the  celebrated  Arian,  Dr.  J.  Taylor,  on 
the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  and  the  rejoinders  of  his  EnglisX 
antagonists. 

10.  The  development  of  New  England  theology  on  sin, 
holiness  and  human  depravity,  by  Edwards,  Hopkins,  Em- 
mons   and  others,  in  reply  to  the  Arminians  and  J.  Tay 
lor. 

11.  The  more  recent  Unitarian  controversies  on  human 
depravity,  in  Europe  and  America. 

12.  The  further  developments  of  New  England  theology 
on  sin  and  holiness,  by  Dr.  N.  Taylor  and  the  New  Haven 
divines. 

13.  The  controversies  in  New  England  and  the  Presby 
terian  church,  to  which  they  gave  rise. 

14.  The  more  recent  controversy  of  Professor  Park  and 
the  Princeton  divines. 

If  any  one,  on  looking  over  this  formidable  outline  of  a 
wide-extended  field  of  controversy,  should  fear  lest  the  mind 
should  be  wearied  and  confounded  by  the  multiplicity  of 
names  and  conflicting  theories,  let  him,  for  a  moment,  rise 
above  names,  and  consider  the  things  in  debate,  and  he  will 
see  that  they  are  few  and  simple.  On  the  one  side  he  will 
find,  under  the  influence  of  Christian  consciousness,  Scrip 
ture  and  history,  a  constant  effort  to  state  thoroughly  the 
entire  ruin  of  man,  its  origin  from  Adam,  and  its  remedy 
in  Christ.  On  the  other  he  will  find  the  annunciation,  with 
greater  or  less  fulness,  of  the  principles  of  honor  and  right,  in 
their  relations  to  God,  and  his  dealings  with  men  ;  and  efforts, 
under  their  influence,  either  utterly  to  disprove,  or  to  modify 
and  soften,  the  facts  alleged,  concerning  the  utter  ruin  and 
gracious  recovery  of  man.  As  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi, 
though  vast,  is  simple  in  its  great  outlines,  and  as  the  river 
that  drains  it  is  formed  of  necessity,  as  it  is,  by  the  waters 


GENERAL    OUTLINE.  257 

that  flow  from  the  descending  slopes  of  the  great  eastern  and 
western  chains  of  mountains,  so  the  valley  of  this  great 
river  of  controversy,  that  has  flowed  for  ages,  is  simple,  and 
the  river  itself  has  been  made,  of  necessity,  by  the  meeting 
of  the  constant  streams  of  thought  and  feeling  that  have 
flowed  from  these  great  and  opposite  mountain  ranges  of 
alleged  facts  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  principles  on  the  other. 
Nor  need  we  wonder  at  the  depth,  intensity  and  power,  of  the 
feelings  that  have  been  manifested.  The  subject  involves 
all  that  man  has  to  hope  or  fear  in  an  eternal  destiny. 

"Who  can  fully  conceive  of  the  importance  of  a  thorough 
and  radical  regeneration,  if  the  account  given  of  the  ruin 
of  man  is  true  ?  It  is  a  deliverance  from  eternal  pollution, 
eternal  shame  and  eternal  woe,  the  magnitude  of  which 
overwhelms  the  mind,  and  eclipses  all  other  deliverances. 
Hence,  to  the  deeply  experimental  Christian,  no  evil  can 
appear  greater  than  the  dissemination  of  false  or  superficial 
views  of  the  depravity  and  ruin  of  man.  To  such,  the  flip 
pancy  and  levity  and  self-exaltation  which  so  many  exhibit, 
who  are  ignorant  of  their  own  utter  ruin,  is  unutterably 
mournful  and  repulsive.  Hence,  we  need  not  wonder  at  the 
earnestness  and  zeal  with  which  experimental  Christians, 
such  as  Augustine,  the  Reformers,  the  Puritans,  Edwards, 
and  others  of  a  like  spirit,  have  defended  the  doctrine  of 
depravity;  nor  at  the  deep  sufferings  which  they  have 
endured,  when  errors  have  prevailed  affecting  vitally  the 
eternal  welfare  of  their  fellow-men. 

But  this  is  not  the  only  just  ground  of  earnest  intellectual 
activity  and  deep  suffering.  Who  can  estimate  the  import 
ance  of  true  views  of  honor  and  right,  in  reference  to  the 
character  of  God  ? 

All  that  is  great,  glorious  and  praiseworthy,  in  the  Cre 
ator, —  all  that  is  valuable  or  desirable  in  his  eternal  king- 
22* 


258  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

dom,  all  that  makes  existence  itself  in  any  degree  a  bless 
ing, —  nay,  all  that  prevents  it  from  becoming  a  most  fearful 
curse,  is  at  stake.  There  is  no  other  interest,  of  which  the 
mind  can  form  a  conception,  that  deserves  for  a  moment  to 
be  compared  with  the  interest  that  every  created  being  has 
in  the  character  of  God.  Not  only  individual  non-exist 
ence,  but  much  more  universal  non-existence,  is  to  be  pre 
ferred  to  existence  under  a  God  the  measures  of  whose 
administration  should  violate  the  fundamental  and  eternal 
principles  of  honor  and  of  right. 

This  estimate  of  the  importance  of  this  great  controversy 
is  not  exaggerated.  Nor  is  it  so  regarded  by  any  competent 
judge.  Hence,  Wiggers,  in  his  history  of  Pelagianisin  and 
Augustinism,  justly  remarks,  "  Among  all  the  doctrinal 
controversies  in  the  Christian  church,  the  Pelagian  cer 
tainly  take  the  first  place,  if  we  regard  the  consequences, 
and  the  importance  of  their  results  to  Christian  doctrine." 
Ranke,  too,  in  his  History  of  the  Popes,  says  of  the  question, 
debated  by  Molina,  concerning  grace,  free  will,  good  works 
and  predestination, — which  is  but  the  necessary  development 
of  the  Pelagian  controversy, —  that,  throughout  the  whole 
range  of  theology,  Catholic  as  well  as  Protestant,  it  is,  and 
ever  has  been,  u  the  most  important,  and  the  most  preg 
nant  with  consequences." 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE    POINT    OF   VISION. 

I  SHALL  not,  in  my  restricted  limits,  undertake  anything 
like  a  full  history  of  so  great  a  controversy.  I  shall  merely 
attempt  to  develop  the  principles,  and  sketch  the  general 
course  of  the  conflict. 

It  is  happy  for  us,  however,  that  there  is  a  mountain-top 
so  situated  that  to  it  we  can  easily  ascend,  and  from  it 
distinctly  and  accurately  survey  the  course  of  this  whole 
conflict.  This  lofty  mountain-top  is  that  eminent  Christian 
father  and  divine,  AUGUSTINE,  Bishop  of  Hippo. 

It  will  be  conceded,  by  all  competent  judges,  that  the 
most  momentous  and  influential  crisis  in  the  whole  of  this 
great  theological  conflict  occurred  during  the  fifth  century, 
in  the  eminently  radical  and  able  controversy  between  him 
on  the  one  hand,  and  Pelagius,  Celestius  and  Julian,  on  the 
other. 

If  it  is  any  honorable  evidence  of  intellectual  greatness 
to  be  able  to  control,  from  age  to  age,  the  theological  specu 
lations  of  the  profoundest  and  most  experimental  minds  in 
the  church,  and,  after  the  eminently  able  discussions  of  the 
present  day,  to  become  once  more  the  master  spirit, 
towards  whom  many  leading  minds  are  beginning  to  gravi 
tate,  as  a  centre  of  revolution  and  of  light,  that  honorable 
evidence  clearly  belongs  to  AUGUSTINE. 


260  CONFLICT    OF    A3ES. 

In  an  able  article  on  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ORIGINAL  SIN, 
in  the  Christian  Review  for  January,  1852,  of  which  Pro 
fessor  Shedd,  of  Auburn,  is  the  author,  there  is  an  open 
and  avowed  return  to  the  fundamental  positions  of  Augus 
tine,  as  essential  in  order  to  maintain  the  true  depth  and 
vitality  of  the  doctrine.  Of  Augustine  he  says,  "  In  two 
traits  he  never  had  a  superior, —  depth  and  penetration." 
Again,  referring  to  the  theory  that  all  men  sinned  in 
Adam's  sin,  he  says:  "Augustine,  although  the  first  to 
philosophize  upon  this  difficult  point  in  order  to  bring  it 
within  the  limits  of  a  doctrinal  system,  has,  nevertheless, 
as  it  seems  to  us,  not  been  excelled  by  any  of  his  success 
ors  in  the  profundity  and  comprehensiveness  of  his  views." 
He  considers  that  as  the  most  profound  theological  period 
in  which  all  the  evangelical  churches  stood  together  on  his 
ground ;  and  seems  to  anticipate  a  speedy  return  to  it,  as 
the  opening  of  an  age  of  deeper  and  more  vital  theology. 
These  views  were  set  forth  in  the  organ  of  the  great 
orthodox  Baptist  denomination  of  our  country,  and  were 
received  by  them,  so  far  as  I  know,  with  universal  applause. 
Certainly,  so  it  was  with  The  Watchman  and  Reflector, 
of  Boston,  one  of  the  most  influential  papers  of  that  denom 
ination.  The  editor  of  that  able  paper  speaks  of  it  in  the 
following  terms : 

"It  is  an  article  discussing  at  considerable  length,  and 
with  metaphysical  acumen  and  logic  seldom  surpassed,  a 
doctrine  of  theology  necessarily  fundamental.  The  writer 
takes  ground  that  back  of  consciousness,  and  of  all  outward 
manifestations,  there  is  in  man  an  evil  nature, —  a  corrupt 
fountain,  forming  the  source  of  whatever  is  sinful  in  his 
life." 

The  editor,  moreover,  is  manifestly  a  convert  to  the 
opinions  of  Prof.  Shedd,  and  anticipates  the  final  triumph 


THE   POINT   OF   VISION.  261 

of  his  views,  for  he  proceeds  to  say  :  "  We  do  not  see  how 
the  force  of  the  writer's  reasoning  can  be  evaded.  He 
belongs  to  the  school  of  Augustine,  Turretin  and  Calvin, 
though  bringing  to  the  investigation  of  his  subject  more  of 
the  fruits  of  scripture  philology  and  of  philosophy  than 
were  furnished  to  the  hand  of  those  distinguished  defenders 
of  the  faith.  He  regards  the  scientific  statement  of  the 
doctrine  of  original  sin  as  having  made  no  advance  since 
the  framing  of  the  Westminster  Catechism  in  1643,  and 
sees  no  prospect  of  advance  for  the  future  in  this  depart 
ment  of  theological  inquiry. 

"Remarking  of  'those  ages  of  controversy,  the  six 
teenth  and  seventeenth  centuries,'  he  says :  '  Those  who 
held  the  doctrine  of  a  sinful  nature,  and  of  a  sinful  nature 
that  is  guilt,  stood  upon  one  side,  and  stood  all  together ; 
and  those  who  rejected  this  doctrine  stood  upon  the  other 
side,  and  also  stood  all  together.  The  Christian  church 
was  divided  into  two  divisions,  and  no  more.  And  this, 
because  the  controversy  was  a  thorough  one,  owing  to 
the  profound  view  of  sin  taken  by  the  disputants  on  the 
Augustinian  side ;  the  metaphysical  rather  than  the  merely 
psychological  aspect  of  the  doctrine  being  uppermost.' 

"  Since  the  period  here  alluded  to,  various  systems  of 
theological  belief  and  denial  have  come  into  existence. 
Socinianism  has  flourished  on  the  continent,  in  England, 
and  in  this  country.  The  same  may  be  said  of  Armin- 
ianism  as  the  distinguishing  element  of  Methodism,  and  as 
having  largely  permeated  the  Episcopacy,  the  Lutherans, 
the  General  and  Free  Will  Baptists.  Under  the  lead  of 
Rev.  C.  G.  Finney,  Drs.  Taylor,  Barnes  and  others,  a 
system  of  what  is  sometimes  called  '  New  Divinity '  has 
also  come  into  vogue.  The  denial  of  original  sin,  as  held 
by  these  men,  and  at  the  time  referred  to,  is  a  marked 


262  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

feature  of  each  of  these  systems ;  while,  of  course,  there  is 
great  general  diversity  between  them.  We  cannot  help 
thinking  that  a  true  or  a  false  theory  of  original  sin  exerts 
a  vital  influence  upon  theology,  either  to  preserve  it  pure, 
or  to  corrupt  it.  It  would  not  be  surprising  again  to  see 
men  holding  to  the  doctrine  of  a  sinful  nature,  and  that 
nature  guilt,  standing  upon  one  side,  and  all  standing 
together ;  and  those  rejecting  the  same  doctrine  standing  on 
the  other  side,  and  all  standing  together.  There  are  tend 
encies  toward  this  issue,  which  it  is  not  difficult  to  mistake. 
And  when  that  issue  is  fairly  reached,  there  will  be  fewer 
hiding-places  of  error  than  now  exist." 

Again,  in  a  notice  of  this  number  of  the  Christian 
Review  he  says  : 

1 '  The  opening  article,  on  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  by 
a  writer  who  chooses  to  withhold  his  name,  is  a  rare  con 
tribution  to  the  metaphysical  side  of  that  profound  subject. 
1  Sin  a  nature,  and  that  nature  guilt,'  is  the  running 
title,  and  indicates  the  writer's  position, — just  the  position 
which  harmonizes  with  scripture  and  with  consciousness. 
and  establishes  man's  need  of  the  redemption  which  is  in 
Christ.  In  the  main  coinciding  with  Edwards,  it  differs 
from  him  on  points  pertaining  to  the  will,  and  will  furnish 
to  the  metaphysical  student  some  views  on  those  points 
which  will  specially  arrest  his  attention.  It  may  be 
doubted  whether  a  more  profound  or  more  valuable  theolog 
ical  article  has  lately  been  given  to  the  public." 

The  Puritan  Recorder,  a  prominent  organ  of  the  ortho 
dox  Congregationalists,  says  of  the  article  :  "It  treats  of  a 
subject  that  is  destined  to  occasion  no  little  discussion ;  and 
it  treats  of  it  in  a  masterly  manner." 

I  mention  these  things  as  striking  signs  of  the  times, 
and  as  a  proof  that  it  is  not  needless  once  more  to  look 


THE    POINT    OF    VISION.  263 

thoroughly  into  the  opinions  of  Augustine.  By  many  it  is 
thought  that  his  views  have  become  as  lifeless  as  the 
entombed  remains  of  the  antediluvian  and  ante-Mosaic 
ages.  E.  H.  Sears,  in  a  recent  able  and  deeply  interesting 
work,  entitled  "REGENERATION,"  thus  expresses  his 
views :  "  Pleasing  omens  already  indicate  that  this  form  of 
belief  is  ceasing  to  become  active.  We  lay  it  off,  then,  in 
the  persuasion  that  it  is  taking  its  place  among  the  fossil 
ized  remains  of  a  former  theologic  world,  which  old  con 
vulsions  had  turned  up  and  left  bare  to  our  wondering  and 
curious  gaze."  It  is  obvious,  however,  that  the  views  of 
Augustine  are  not  destined  to  lose  their  hold  on  men 
of  eminent  piety  and  intellectual  power,  at  least  until  they 
have  been  once  more  thoroughly  reviewed  and  reconsidered. 
Nor  ought  we  to  wonder  at  this.  His  mind  was  one  of 
uncommon  scope,  richness  and  power.  His  works  are,  in 
all  parts,  full  of  the  seeds  of  thought.  They  were,  during 
the  middle  ages,  the  great  encyclopedia  of  the  theological 
sciences.  We  rarely,  if  ever,  find  a  profound  Christian 
and  an  eminent  divine,  from  Gregory  the  great  to  Luther 
and  Calvin,  who  had  not  been  moulded  by  the  study  of 
Augustine.  Among  the  scholastic  divines,  Neander  says, 
"  The  dogmatical  bent  of  Augustine  exercised  the  most 
decided  influence  on  the  minds  of  the  age."  Of  Anselm 
of  Canterbury,  Neander  remarks  that  "  he  was  the  Augus 
tine  of  his  age ; ' '  and  that  ' '  he  exerted  the  most  important 
influence  on  the  theological  and  philosophical  turn  of  the 
twelfth  century."  Yet,  "  the  works  from  which  his  mind 
derived  all  its  nourishment,  and  which,  as  he  continually 
studied  them,  gave  an  impulse  to  all  his  inquiries,  were  the 
Bible  and  St.  Augustine."  In  addition  to  his  rich  and 
creative  intellect,  the  deep  piety  of  Augustine  enabled  him 
thus  to  draw  to  himself  the  great  evangelical  leaders  of 


264  CONFLICT    OF   A(JES. 

each  successive  age.  In  addition  to  this,  it  ought  to  be  said 
that  the  discussion  of  the  great  questions  concerning  the 
moral  character  and  relations  of  man  has  never  been  so 
much  more  comprehensive  and  thorough,  at  any  one  time 
since  Augustine,  than  it  was  in  his  day,  that  any  subse 
quent  age  has  been  fully  and  properly  qualified  to  sit  in 
judgment  upon  him.  The  more  that  great  original  contro 
versy  is  examined,  the  deeper  will  be  our  conviction  of  the 
extent  and  profundity  of  the  discussion.  Pelagius,  Celes- 
tius,  and  especially  Julian,  were  men  of  uncommon  ability. 
They  left  few  new  modes  of  assailing  the  views  of  Augus 
tine  to  the  ingenuity  of  their  successors.  Nor  did  the 
indefatigable  mind  of  Augustine  shrink  from  their  encoun 
ter  on  any  point.  The  question,  also,  as  to  preexistence, 
was  at  that  time  more  an  open  question  than  it  has  ever 
since  been,  or  is  now ;  and  was  not  overlooked  in  the  dis 
cussion,  as  it  has  generally  been  from  that  time  to  this. 
The  question  as  to  the  proper  interpretation  of  the  last 
part  of  the  fifth  chapter  of  Romans,  which  is  the  chief 
passage  relied  on  for  disclosing  the  relations  of  Adam  to 
his  race,  was  then  more  an  open  question  than  it  has  ever 
been  since  that  time.  In  short,  the  highest  issues  of  this 
whole  discussion  were  then  first  made,  and  were  so  deeply 
discussed  that  no  subsequent  generation  has  ever  reached  a 
point  of  vision  high  enough  to  enable  them  thoroughly  to 
reconsider  them. 

It  is  not,  therefore,  without  reason  that  I  have  selected 
this  as  the  point  of  vision, —  the  lofty  mountain- top  from 
which  to  review  the  whole  discussion. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THEOLOGICAL      SPECULATIONS     BEFORE      AUGUS 
TINE. 

THIS  period  includes  about  four  centuries,  extending 
from  Christ  nearly  to  the  fall  of  the  western  Roman 
empire.  In  it  occurred  the  earliest  and  most  exciting  dis 
cussions  as  to  the  Trinity.  These,  however,  I  shall  not 
notice,  but  shall  fix  my  attention  solely  on  the  great  conflict 
that  is  now  before  us. 

It  is  a  striking  peculiarity  of  this  period  that  it  opened 
under  the  influence  of  no  human  systems  of  theology.  The 
sources  of  theology  were  in  the  possession  of  all,  but  had  not 
been  explored.  The  Old  Testament  was  in  existence,  and 
Christ  and  his  apostles  had  taught  and  written.  The  Holy 
Spirit  had  descended,  and  Jews  and  Gentiles  had  been  con 
vinced  of  sin,  and,  being  united  to  Christ  by  a  living  faith, 
had  learned  the  mysteries  of  a  Christian  experience. 
Without  any  metaphysical  theory  as  to  the  origin  of  sin, 
they  were  convinced  by  facts  on  every  side,  as  well  as  by 
the  word  of  God,  of  the  deep  depravity  of  all  men.  Of 
the  moral  state,  both  of  the  Jewish  and  Pagan  world,  Paul 
had  given  a  dark  picture  in  the  first  chapters  of  the  epistle 
to  the  Romans.  Besides  all  this,  in  every  true  convert  a 
Christian  experience,  without  any  theological  theory,  dis 
closed  the  deep  depravity  of  the  heart.  Yet,  for  many 
years,  these  abundant  materials  were  wrought  up  into  no 
23 


266  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

system.  No  great  theologians  followed  the  apostles.  An 
immense  chasm  separated  the  apostolical  fathers  from  them. 
The  men  whom  God  inspired  tower  upwards  like  mountains. 
Their  uninspired  successors  at  once  sink  down  to  the  dead 
level  of  the  plains  below. 

As  years  rolled  on,  however,  assaults  were  made  upon 
various  doctrines  of  the  word  of  God  by  different  classes  of 
errorists,  or  else  attempts  were  made  to  undermine  or  cor 
rupt  them  by  mixtures  of  erroneous  systems.  It  thus 
became  necessary  to  define  the  real  doctrines  of  Christian 
ity,  and  to  sustain  them  alike  against  open  assaults  and 
insidious  corruptions. 

Which  of  the  two  moving  powers  of  Christianity  should 
have  the  ascendency  in  these  opening  theological  movements 
would,  of  course,  depend  upon  the  nature  of  the  attacks 
made,  and  of  the  defence  which  was  thus  rendered  necessary. 

The  defence  of  the  divine  origin  of  Christianity  against 
Jews  and  Gentiles  was  the  first  work  of  the  church.  But 
they  were  called,  very  soon,  to  repel  attacks  on  the  char 
acter  of  God,  charging  him  with  having  violated  the  princi 
ples  of  honor  and  of  right  in  his  dealings  with  men,  both 
as  to  their  natures  and  powers,  and  his  action  upon  them. 
Of  course,  this  rendered  necessary  and  called  forth  defences 
of  God,  in  which  the  principles  of  equity  and  of  honor  were 
recognized,  and  arguments  were  presented  to  prove  that 
God  had  always  and  perfectly  regarded  them. 

It  is  plain,  from  what  I  have  before  said,  that  such  a 
course  of  events  would  lead  to  such  statements  concerning 
the  constitution  and  faculties  of  man,  and  the  freedom  and 
power  of  his  will,  as  would  tend  to  superficial  views  of 
human  depravity.  Accordingly,  when  we  take  a  general 
view  of  the  main  course  and  logical  drift  of  the  discussions 
on  the  moral  character  of  man  and  the  grace  of  God  which 


EARLY   THEOLOGICAL   SPECULATIONS.  267 

preceded  Augustine,  obvious  facts  authorize  us  to  say  that 
they  did  finally  result  in  superficial  views  of  human 
depravity.  I  do  not  mean  that  the  doctrine  that  all  men 
are  sinners,  and  that  they  need  to  be  saved  by  the  grace  of 
God  through  Christ,  was  ever  denied.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  was  universally  maintained.  But  the  sirifulness  of  man 
was  not  so  developed  as  to  tend  to  those  views  of  innate 
depravity  which  produce  the  deepest  forms  of  Christian 
experience, —  those  forms  in  which  there  is  a  keen  sense  of 
the  utter  moral  weakness  of  man,  and  of  his  entire  depend 
ence  on  the  grace  of  the  regenerating  and  sanctifying  Spirit. 
Instead  of  this,  there  was  a  development  of  those  forms 
which  make  prominent  the  energies  of  the  human  will,  as 
free  and  competent  to  fulfil  all  the  demands  of  the  law  and 
of  the  gospel.  Accordingly,  the  final  result  was  that  the 
errors  of  Pelagianisrn  were  developed  from  these  tendencies 
carried  out  to  their  extreme  issues. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  whole  church,  with  one  voice, 
maintained  the  freedom  of  the  will  before  the  discussions  of 
Augustine  and  Pelagius.  Especially  was  this  true  of  the 
oriental  church.  The  Greek  fathers  carefully  excluded  from 
their  theological  system  the  idea  of  a  nature  depraved  and 
punishable  before  action.  According  to  them,  no  man  was  a 
sinner  until  he  had  voluntarily  transgressed  the  laws  of  con 
science  and  of  God,  and  this  no  man  was  under  any  neces 
sity  of  doing.  We  are  now  prepared  to  understand  and  to 
believe  Neander,  when  he  says  that  "Pelagius  was  a  dili 
gent  student  of  the  oriental  church  teachers ;  and  the  form 
in  which  he  found  Christian  anthropology  exhibited  in  those 
writers  corresponded  with  the  peculiar  development  of  his 
own  inward  life."  (Torrey's  Neander,  n.  573.)  The 
great  idea  of  his  experience,  the  same  eminent  historian 
states  to  be,  to  determine  "how  far  man  might  advanc*. 


268  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

towards  perfection,  by  a  self-active  development  of  the 
germs  of  goodness  lying  in  his  own  moral  nature,  by  the 
superior  energy  of  the  will,  by  self-control." 

I  have  already  stated,  in  general  terms,  how  it  happene 
that  the  first  development  of  the  church  was  in  this  direc 
tion.     I  remarked  that  it  originated  from  the  nature  of  the 
first  great  controversial  attacks  to  which  the  early  Christiana 
were  exposed.    The  nature  and  form  of  these  attacks  I  sha, 
now  more  particularly  consider.     One  of  the  most  important 
proceeded  from  the  Gnosticsr    The  assaults,  also,  of  the 
Manicheans,   and  of  the  philosophers  who  inculcated  the 
doctrine  of  fate,  tended  in  the  same  direction.     Gnosticism, 
it  is  well  known,  developed  itself  in  a  systematic  and  con 
centrated  attack  upon  the  Old  Testament. 

The  Gnostics,  holding  that  matter  is  in  its  own  nature 
essentially  evil,  and  productive  of  sin,  sought  to  explain  the 
evils  of  this  world  as  the  result,  not  of  the  action  of  the 
supreme  God,  but  of  a  deity  called  the  Demiurgus,  or  world- 
maker,  who,  from  preexisting  elements,  had  formed  this 
material  system,  and  in  it  involved  in  the  bondage  of  mat 
ter  spirits  of  divine  origin  from  the  heavenly  regions,  who 
thereby  were  rendered  sinful  and  corrupt.  This  Demiurgus 
they  asserted  to  be  the  God  of  the  Old  Testament ;  and 
most  of  them  regarded  him  as  an  evil  and  malignant  being, 
whom  Christ  was  revealed  to  destroy,  in  order  to  deliver 
men  from  bondage  to  him  and  to  matter.  In  proof  of  these 
assertions,  they  appealed  to  his  acts,  as  recorded  in  the  Old 
Testament.  This,  of  course,  resulted  in  an  attack  on  the 
real  God  of  Christianity,  which  the  church  was  called  on  to 
repel.  They  alleged,  in  particular,  his  despotic  and  unjust 
conduct,  in  punishing  children  for  the  sins  of  their  fathers, 
and  in  violating  the  free  will  of  man ;  as,  for  example,  in  the 
case  of  hardening  Pharaoh's  heart,  and,  in  general,  by  his 


EARLY   THEOLOGICAL   SPECULATIONS.  269 

arbitrary  and  irresistible  decrees.  Is  there  any  reason, 
then,  to  wonder  that,  in  defence  of  God  and  of  the  Old 
Testament  against  such  charges,  the  early  fathers  should 
have  concentrated  their  energies  in  a  full  development  and 
defence  of  the  doctrine  of  the  freedom  of  the  will,  and  in 
the  exposition  of  those  bold  passages  which  represent  God 
as  hardening  men  and  turning  their  hearts  to  evil  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  consist  with  the  laws  of  honor  and  of  right, 
and  with  just  views  of  human  responsibility  ?  Moreover, 
as  the  Gnostics  taught  that  only  one  out  of  the  three  classes 
into  which  they  divided  men  had  natures  capable  of  a  holy 
development,  is  it  to  be  wondered  at  that  the  church  should 
earnestly  seek  to  demonstrate  that  no  man  had  a  nature 
essentially  evil  and  sinful  before  action,  and  as  such  inca 
pable  of  a  right  and  holy  choice  of  God  and  of  his  king 
dom  1  Afterwards,  the  Manichean  notion  of  a  nature  essen 
tially  evil  in  itself  called  for  a  repetition  of  the  same  course 
of  reasoning.  And,  as  the  doctrine  of  fate,  which  had  per 
vaded  the  pagan  world,  encountered  them  on  every  side,  it, 
of  course,  impelled  them  with  augmented  momentum  in  the 
same  direction.  Accordingly,  it  is  not  possible  to  state 
in  stronger  terms  than  they  have  abundantly  used  the  great 
fact  of  man's  perfect  free  agency,  as  a  capacity  of  choosing, 
with  the  power  of  contrary  choice,  in  every  instance  of  vol 
untary  and  responsible  conduct.  This  is  so  fully  conceded 
by  all  writers  on  the  history  of  dogmatic  theology,  of  any 
authority,  that  it  is  superfluous  to  produce  any  documentary 
evidence  of  the  fact. 

It  is  also  evident,  beyond  denial,  that  they  conditioned 
God's  decree  of  election  upon  his  fore-knowledge  of  the  vol 
untary  conduct  of  those  to  whom  the  offers  of  mercy  should 
be  proclaimed.  In  addition  to  this,  by  their  opposition  to 
the  Gnostic  and  Manichean  dogmas  concerning  natures 
23* 


270  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

essentially  evil,  they  were,  in  fact,  led  definitely  to  deny 
the  existence  of  a  sinful  nature  in  man.  Hence,  Gregory 
of  Nyssa,  in  his  work  concerning  children  prematurely 
removed,  says,  "  The  child,  free  from  all  sin,  finds  itself 
in  the  natural  state,  and  needs  no  purification  for  its  health, 
because  it  has  as  yet  fallen  into  no  disease  of  the  soul." 
(Emerson's  Wiggers,  p.  346.)  Chrysostom  also  says,  "  We 
baptize  children,  though  they  have  no  sin,  that  they  may 
have  holiness,"  &c.  At  the  same  time,  they  did  not  deny 
that  all  men  do  in  fact  sin,  and  thus,  becoming  guilty  and 
corrupt,  need  the  atonement  of  Christ.  Moreover,  in  gen 
eral  they  held  that  the  sin  of  Adam,  in  some  way,  had 
so  affected  his  race  that  it  stood  connected  with  this  result. 
Still,  however,  they  considered  the  only  immediate  effects 
of  this  sin  to  be  natural  death,  a  higher  degree  of  sensual 
excitability,  and  exposure  to  a  higher  power  of  temptation. 
And  yet  on  these  points  some  of  them  spoke  with  great 
caution,  lest  they  should  seem  to  undermine  the~ideaofa 
true  and  real  free  agency. 

Of  the  fathers,  up  to  the  death  of  Origen,  or  the  year 
254,  Hagenbach  says : 

11  The  opinions  of  the  fathers  were  not  as  yet  fully  devel 
oped  concerning  the  moral  depravity  of  every  individual, 
and  the  existence  of  sin  in  mankind  generally,  as  the  effect 
of  the  sin  of  the  first  man.  Many  felt  too  much  disposed  to 
look  upon  sin  as  the  voluntary  act  of  a  moral  agent,  to  con 
ceive  of  a  kind  of  hereditary  tendency  transmitted  from  one 
generation  to  another.  The  sinful  acts  of  every  individual 
appeared  to  them  less  the  necessary  consequence  of  the  first 
sin.  than  a  voluntary  repetition  of  it.  In  order  to  explain 
the  mysterious  power  which  almost  compels  men  to  sin, 
they  had  recourse  not  so  much  to  original  sin,  as  to  a  sup- 


EARLY   THEOLOGICAL   SPECULATIONS.  271 

posed  influence  of  the  demons,  which,  however,  cannot 
constrain  any  man  to  trespass." 

In  the  preceding  passage,  I  think,  however,  that  the 
statement  would  have  been  more  correct  if  he  had  said  that 
some,  rather  than  "many,"  were  disposed  to  call  in  ques 
tion  any  kind  of  hereditary  tendency  to  sin.  Concerning 
the  Greek  fathers  down  to  the  time  of  Augustine,  Hagen- 
bach  also  remarks  : 

"Even  those  theologians,  who  kept  themselves  free  from 
the  influence  of  the  Augustinian  system,  supposed  that  the 
sin  of  Adam  was  followed  by  disastrous  effects  upon  the 
human  race,  but  restricted  them  (as  the  fathers  of  the  pre 
ceding  period  had  done)  to  the  mortality  of  the  body,  the 
hardships  and  miseries  of  life,  and  sometimes  admitted 
that  the  moral  faculties  of  man  had  been  affected  by  the  fall. 
Thus.  Gregory  of  Nazianzum,  in  particular  (to  whom 
Augustine  appealed  in  preference  to  all  others),  thought 
that  both  the  >'ovs  and  the  n>vx^l  had  been  considerably 
impaired  by  the  fall,  and  regarded  the  perversion  of  man's 
sentiments,  and  its  consequence,  idolatry,  which  the  writers 
previous  to  his  time  had  ascribed  to  the  influence  of  demons, 
as  the  effect  of  the  first  sin.  But  he  was  far  from  supposing 
the  total  depravity  of  mankind,  and  the  entire  loss  of  the 
free  will.  On  the  contrary,  the  doctrine  of  the  freedom  of 
the  will  continued  to  be  distinctly  maintained  by  the  Greek 
church.  Athanasius  himself,  commonly  called  the  father 
of  orthodoxy,  asserted  in  the  strongest  terms  that  man  has 
the  ability  of  choosing  between  good  and  evil :  and  was  so 
far  from  believing  in  the  general  corruption  of  mankind,  as 
to  look  upon  several  individuals,  who  lived  prior  to  the 
appearance  of  Christ,  as  righteous.  Cyrill  of  Jerusalem 
also  assumed  that  men  are  born  in  a  state  of  innocence,  and 
that  a  free  agent  alone  can  commit  sin.  Similar  views  were 


272  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

entertained  by  Ephraim  the  Syrian,  Gregory  of  Nyssa, 
Basil  the  Great,  and  others.  Chrysostom,  whose  whole 
tendency  was  of  a  practico-moral  kind,  brought  the  liberty 
of  man  and  his  moral  self-determination  most  distinctly  for 
ward,  and  passed  a  severe  censure  upon  those  who  endeav 
ored  to  excuse  their  own  immoralities  by  ascribing  the  origin 
of  sin  to  the  fall  of  Adam." 

In  support  of  these  statements,  he  quotes  many  passages, 
of  which  I  shall  omit  all  except  those  from  Cyrill  of  Jeru 
salem.  He  says,  "  We  come  into  this  world  without  sin, 
and  sin  of  free  choice."  "  The  soul  has  free  will,  and  the 
devil  can  suggest  temptations,  but  he  cannot  compel  to  sin 
contrary  to  choice."  "  If  any  one  through  his  own  neglect 
is  not  deemed  fit  to  receive  grace,  let  him  not  censure  the 
Spirit,  but  his  own  unbelief."  (Cat.  IV.  19,  21,  and  xvi. 
28.)  Properly  to  understand  these  views  of  the  Greek 
fathers,  we  must  consider  against  what  errors  they  were 
aimed,  and  remember  that  even  those  who  held  that  infants 
were  born  sinless,  as  Cyrill,  and  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  believed 
that  there  was  still  in  the  race  a  universal  tendency  to  sin, 
and,  in  opposition  to  pride  and  self-conceit,  urged  the  deep 
actual  depravity  of  man. 

It  is  too  plain  to  need  proof  that  these  views  of  the 
Greek  fathers  are  based  upon  a  laudable  and  reverenti  il 
purpose  to  defend  God  against  all  charges  of  violating  the 
principles  of  equity  and  honor ;  but  it  is  no  less  obvious  that 
they  tend  to  superficial  views  of  human  depravity.  They 
also  tend  to  a  degradation  of  free  agency  itself,  in  the  way 
which  has  been  pointed  out  in  considering  the  Unitarian 
and  some  forms  of  the  New  School  theology.  For  it  is 
plain  that  every  effort  to  account  for  developments  so  uni 
versally  and  so  deeply  depraved  as  are  those  of  the  human 
race  in  this  world,  by  regarding  them  as  the  natural  result 


EARLY    THEOLOGICAL   SPECULATIONS.  273 

of  free  agency  as  such,  of  necessity  degrades  free  agency 
itself.  Moreover,  all  efforts  to  prove  that  free  agency,  as  it 
exists  in  this  world,  is  such  as  God  ought  in  honor  and  jus 
tice  to  confer  on  new-created  minds,  naturally  leads  to  low 
views  of  what  is  possible  in  the  original  and  upright  state 
of  new-created  minds.  Accordingly,  in  the  Greek  fathers 
we  find  low  views  of  the  state  of  original  righteousness  in 
which  man  was  created.  Hence,  Neander  remarks  that 
"the  Pelagians,  like  the  older,  particularly  the  oriental 
church  teachers,  with  whom  they,  in  fact,  more  especially 
coincided,  compare  the  state  of  the  first  man  with  that  of  an 
innocent,  inexperienced  child;  only  with  this  difference, 
that,  as  a  thing  necessary  in  order  to  his  preservation,  his 
spiritual  and  corporeal  powers  were  already  unfolded  to  a 
certain  extent."  Moreover,  in  comparing  the  Greek  with 
the  Latin  church,  he  remarks,  "By  means  of  Augustine, 
whose  influence  did  not  extend  to  the  eastern  church,  the 
general  system  of  (western)  doctrine  took  its  shape  and 
direction  more  decidedly  from  the  doctrine  of  redemption  as 
a  centre,  and  from  the  anthropology  (of  Augustine)  con 
nected  therewith.  But  among  the  Greeks  the  case  was 
otherwise.  Whilst,  in  the  western  church,  the  Augustinian 
scheme  of  doctrine  had  become  dominant,  in  the  Greek 
church  the  older  and  more  indefinite  mode  of  apprehending 
the  doctrines  of  grace,  of  free  will,  and  of  providence, —  a 
theory  bordering  on  Pelagianism, — had  been  preserved." 
Any  one  can  satisfy  himself  of  the  truth  of  this  view  by  a 
reference  to  John  of  Damascus,  the  great  systematic  divine 
of  the  Greek  church,  who  has  preserved  the  oriental  system 
as  it  was  in  the  days  of  Chrysostom,  excluding  all  the  modi 
fications  introduced  by  Augustine. 

In  connection  with  this  state  of  facts  let  it  now  be  noticed 
that   it  is  conceded   that  the  religious  experience   of  the 


274  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

period  before  Augustine  did  not  have  that  deep  Pauline 
character  which  was  afterwards  developed  in  Augustine,  and 
in  those  who  adopted  his  views.  Hagenbach  says  :  "In 
opposition  to  the  opinion  that  conviction  of  sin.  accom 
panied  by  powerful  excitement,  which  attains  to  a  sense  of 
pardon  only  after  internal  struggles,  is  alone  the  sure  crite 
rion  and  indispensable  condition  of  the  Christian's  charac 
ter,  we  may  safely  refer  to  the  primitive  church,  in  which, 
to  say  the  least,  such  a  notion  of  sin  did  not  prevail."  His 
explanation  of  this  phenomenon  appears  to  me  singular  and 
inadequate.  In  days  of  external  martyrdom,  he  informs 
us,  such  an  experience  was  not  needed.  But,  "  when  per 
secutions  ceased,  it  became  a  duty  imperative  on  the  church 
to  cultivate  the  internal  martyrdom  in  opposition  to  exter 
nal  triumphs."  This  internal  martyrdom,  he  tells  us, 
"  consisted  in  the  subjection  of  the  heart  to  the  power  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  sense  of  Augustine,  which  pre 
pared  the  way  for  the  regeneration  of  the  church  in  after 
ages."  He  thinks  that  one  experience  belonged  very 
properly  to  the  childhood  of  the  church,  but  the  other  to  a 
period  of  necessary  subsequent  development.  From  this 
view  I  beg  leave  to  dissent.  Did  not  Paul  live  in  the 
martyr-age  ?  Yet  he  had  the  same  deep  experience  and 
self-crucifixion  with  Augustine  ;  and  he  inculcated  it  as  a 
proper  and  necessary  part  of  Christian  experience,  in  all 
ages.  Moreover,  ought  not  the  heart  to  be  subjected  to  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  all  ages,  as  truly  as  in  the 
ages  after  Augustine  ?  There  are  others  who  account  for 
such  cases  of  deep  conviction  by  the  supposition  that  the 
'subjects  of  them  were  men  of  violent  passions,  and  power 
ful  sensual  tendencies,  who,  like  Augustine,  for  a  time 
wallow  in  sin,  or  at  least  are  called  to  a  violent  struggle 
with  their  appetites  and  impulses.  What,  then,  shall  bo 


EARLY   THEOLOGICAL   SPECULATIONS.  275 

I 

said  of  the  case  of  Edwards,  moral,  intellectual  and  refined 
from  his  youth  up,  and  surrounded  by  nothing  but  pure 
and  intellectual  society  ?  How  is  his  deep  Pauline  and 
Augustinian  experience  to  be  explained,  on  this  theory? 
To  me  it  is  plain  that  the  type  of  experience  before  Augus 
tine  was,  to  a  great  extent,  caused  by  the  tendencies  of  the 
prevailing  doctrinal  system,  and  that  the  change  of  doctrine 
effected  by  Augustine  introduced  a  deeper  style  of  Chris 
tian  experience.  A  striking  confirmation  of  this  view  is 
found  in  the  fact  that,  in  the  Greek  church, —  retaining 
their  original  system, —  the  Augustinian  experience  has 
rarely,  if  ever,  been  found,  even  to  this  day.  To  complete 
our  view,  it  ought  to  be  added,  that  during  this  period  the 
ascetic  system,  which  is  based  upon  the  idea  that  the  origin 
of  sin  is  to  be  found  in  matter, —  a  principle  of  Gnosticism, 
with  which  the  church,  in  spite  of  her  conflicts  against  that 
system  in  general,  was  early  infected, —  struck  its  roots  deep 
in  the  Christian  world,  and  developed  itself  in  the  form  of 
monastic  institutions.  The  tendency  of  this  ascetic  system, 
in  all  its  forms,  is  to  magnify  the  works  of  man,  and  to  hide 
the  free  grace  of  God.  We  shall  find  in  this,  in  connection 
with  the  superficial  theology  which  has  already  been  con 
sidered,  a  sufficient  account  of  the  want,  at  that  time,  of  a 
deep  Christian  experience  of  the  same  kind  which  charac-  r^ 
terized  the  apostle  Paul,  as  well  as  the  profound  Augustine. 
Here,  then,  we  see  that,  in  accordance  with  my  opening 
statement,  the  principles  of  equity  and  of  honor,  in  their 
reaction  from  Gnosticism,  Manicheism  and  fatalism,  have,  in 
fact,  given  rise  to  superficial  views  of  human  depravity, 
which  are  not  adapted  to  produce  a  deep  Christian  expe 
rience.  These,  at  length,  were  taken  up  and  carried  beyond 
the  prevailing  views  of  the  church,  even  to  their  extreme 
results,  by  Pelagius  and  his  compeers ;  and  thus  led  to  that 


276  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

great  reaction  which  was  developed  by  the  agency  of  that 
eminent  master-spirit,  through  whom  the  channels  of  a  pro 
found  Christian  experience  were  disclosed  and  deepened  for 
all  coming  ages. 

All  that  Pelagius,  Celestius  and  Julian  did,  was  to  carry 
out  to  their  natural  results  the  principles  of  honor  and 
right,  on  the  supposition  that  this  is  our  first  state  of  exist 
ence.  Their  doctrine,  in  brief,  is,  that  man  has  such  a  moral 
constitution  and  such  powers  as  God  ought,  as  an  honorable 
and  just  being,  to  confer  on  every  new-created  being.  All 
men  receive  so  much  from  the  Creator,  and  Adam  had  no 
more.  Therefore,  all  men  are  naturally  as  well  -off  as 
Adam  was  before  the  fall.  Hence  his  fall  injured  himself 
only,  and  not  his  posterity.  Herein  Pelagius  differed  from 
the  early  fathers,  so  far  as  they  held  that  the  fall  of  Adam 
injured  the  moral  constitution  of  his  posterity,  and  produced 
a  hereditary  propensity  to  sin.  But  he  did  not  differ  from 
them  in  teaching  that  all  men  are  free  agents,  with  full 
power  to  obey  the  law  of  God  and  the  gospel ;  and  that  there 
is  in  them  no  sin,  and  no  sinful  nature,  before  voluntary 
action.  Such  was  the  general  view  of  the  whole  church 
before  his  day. 

It  followed  from  the  views  of  Pelagius  that  a  man  could 
live  without  sin,  and  so  be  saved  by  the  law,  without  any 
need  of  the  atonement.  Hence  the  Pelagian  doctrine  that 
the  law  is  as  good  a  means  of  salvation  as  the  gospel. 
Hence,  too,  the  idea  of  Pelagius,  that  the  grace  of  God  con 
sisted  in  part  in  making  man  a  free  agent,  and  also  in  the 
presentation  to  him,  in  various  ways,  of  motives  adapted  to 
excite  him  to  a  right  use  of  his  powers  as  a  free  agent ;  hence, 
too,  his  reluctance  to  admit  the  absolute  necessity  of  any 
other  grace  exerting  an  interior  and  decisive  power  upon 
the  will,  such  as  to  deliver  it  from  the  bondage  of  sin,  and 


EARLY   THEOLOGICAL   SPECULATIONS.  277 

restore  to  it  true  liberty.  Pelagius  also  differed  from  the 
preceding  fathers  by  holding  that  natural  death  was  not  the 
result  of  Adam's  sm,  either  in  himself  or  in  his  posterity. 
He  held  that  death  was  inseparable  from  our  nature ;  and 
that,  therefore,  Adam  and  all  his  offspring  would  have  died, 
even  if  he  had  not  sinned. 

NOTE  on  p.  272. 

The  tendency  of  teaching  that  the  mind  of  man  enters  this  world  in  a 
uormal  and  uufallen  state  to  degrade  our  conceptions  of  free  agency,  and 
of  the  true  original  dignity  of  the  nature  of  man,  and  to  produce  superfi 
cial  views  of  the  reality  find  guilt  of  sin,  I  have  not  fully  discussed  in  any 
one  place  according  to  its  importance,  but  have  viewed  it  in  various 
aspects  during  the  progress  of  the  general  discussion.  To  enable  any  one 
who  desires  it  to  unite  these  separate  discussions  in  one  view,  I  will  refer 
to  the  other  places  where  they  occur  : 

•R    v  TT    ^  ChaP-  V111-  PP-  141—146. 
Book  II.  J        *  XI        *  181_183> 

T?      V  TTT    $  ChaP-  V-        PP-  215—217. 

Book  III.  J        v  vn   »  229-233. 

TI    v  TV  f  ChaP-  m-    PP-  272—277. 
Book  IV.  J        *  x.  335-337. 

24 


CHAPTER    IV. 

THE    MOUNTAIN-TOP;    OR,    AUGUSTINE    AND 
HIS   EXPERIENCE. 

FROM  what  has  been  said,  it  appears  that  up  to  the  time 
of  Augustine  there  had  been  no  serious  controversy  among 
good  men  on  the  subject  of  human  depravity.  The  assaults 
on  Christianity  from  without,  by  the  Gnostics,  Fatalists  and 
Manicheans,  had  united  the  whole  church  in  defending  the 
freedom  of  the  will,  and  the  rectitude  of  God  with  respect 
to  the  original  constitution  and  powers  of  man.  Thus,  all 
things  had  given  to  the  principles  of  equity  and  of  honor 
an  ascendency  and  a  preponderance  which  threatened  at 
length  entirely  to  eradicate  the  radical  and  thorough  doctrine 
of  human  depravity.  That  such  was  the  tendency,  is 
obvious  from  the  fact  that  Pelagius,  by  whom  this  work  was 
at  length  consummated,  was  a  diligent  student  of  the  early 
fathers,  especially  those  of  the  Greek  church,  and  found  in 
their  doctrine  concerning  man  views  which  accorded  with 
his  own  experience. 

We  come  now  to  a  great  and  necessary  reaction  from  this 
mode  of  thinking  and  reasoning,  the  influence  of  which  has 
not  been  expended  even  to  this  day.  It  has  not,  indeed, 
ever  gained  the  ascendency,  so  as  to  unite  all  good  men  in 
one  harmonious  phalanx ;  it  has  never  been  able  to  prevent 
powerful  reactions  against  itself;  yet,  as  compared  with  what 

t 


AUGUSTINE   AND    HIS   EXPERIENCE.  279 

preceded  it,  it  was  a  great  advance,  and  it  has  effected  a      ^ 
great  work  for  God  and  for  humanrty. 

Its  peculiar  and  fundamental  work  was  to  restore  to  the 
church   that  deep   and  radical  view   of  human  depravity 
which  is  found  in  the  word  of  God,  and  without  which  all 
efforts  to  effect  the  moral  renovation  of  man  and  of  society   flf 
will  be  superficial  and  powerless. 

The  great  instrument  of  divine  providence,  in  effecting 
this  reaction,  was  Augustine,  a  man  whom  God  had  fitted, 
by  his  own  experience,  to  sound  all  the  depths  of  a  true  and 
Pauline  Christian  consciousness,  and  thus  to  form  an  accu 
rate  conception  of  what  are  the  original  and  normal  relations 
of  the  mind  to  God,  and  of  what  are  the  corruptions  and 
perversions  which  have  been  introduced  into  it  by  sin. 

He  is  that  spiritual  mountain-top  upon  which  I  propose 
fcto  stand,  in  order  to  survey  this  great  conflict,  from  its  first 
development  to  this  day.  And,  as  his  influence  enters  so- 
deeply  into  all  the  religious  history  of  the  world  since  his 
day,  I  think  it  important,  so  far  as  possible,  to  establish  a 
Christian  sympathy  and  good  understanding  between  him 
and  Christians  of  the  present  age. 

I  am  the  more  desirous  to  do  this,  as  he  is  extensively 
misunderstood.  He  is  thought  of  as  the  advocate  of  a  Sys 
tem  so  stern  and  fearful  that  he  must  have  been  a  mere 
heartless  reasoner,  ready  to  sacrifice  all  the  finer  feelings 
of  humanity  upon  the  altar  of  an  iron  logical  consistency, 

It  is  true  that  Augustine  was  a  logician ;  but  it  is  no  less 
true  that  no  man  ever  had  a  larger,  a  more  tender,  a  more 
sensitive  heart,  or  a  deeper  abyss  of  profound  and  glowing 
emotion.  Indeed,  it  was  the  great,  the  final  end  of  Augus 
tine,  to  love  with  the  whole  intensity  of  his  being,  and  to  be 
loved  with  an  infinite  and  almighty  love,  a  love  such  as  can 
be  found  nowhere  but  in  God.  It  was  this  un:on  of  power- 


280  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

ful  logic  and  deep  emotion  which  gave  Augustine  such 
power  over  the  minds  of  men, —  a  power  to  which  every  age 
has  borne  witness,  from  that  day  to  the  present. 

These  characteristics  of  Augustine  are  noticed  by  Wig- 
gers,  as  effecting  in  him  a  union  of  scholasticism  and  mysti 
cism.  But,  as  some  of  his  remarks  on  the  subject  of  a  mys 
tic  experience  are  adapted  to  produce  misunderstanding,  I 
here  introduce  them  for  the  sake  of  some  remarks. 

Concerning  him,  then,  Wiggers  thus  speaks  :  "  From 
all  this,  the  following  characteristic  of  Augustine  is  mani 
fest.  The  most  distinctive  and  the  most  interesting  thing,  and 
that  by  which  his  individuality  is  the  most  strikingly  indi 
cated,  is  the  union  of  mysticism  with  scholasticism, —  that 
is,  the  endeavor  by  feeling  to  reach  the  infinite,  with  the 
endeavor  to  reduce  the  infinite  to  our  comprehension.  In 
this  respect,  Augustine  is  altogether  remarkable, —  a  pecu- 
liar  phenomenon,  one  might  say,  of  Christian  antiquity. 
Certainly,  we  find  no  father  in  whom  we  meet  with  just  as 
many  proofs  of  a  mystic  way  of  thinking  as  of  the  preva 
lence  of  intellect.  How  C;m  any  one  express  himself  in  a 
more  mystical  way  than  to  speak  of  the  embraces  of  God, 
and  of  sucking  his  milk?  And  how  clearly  do  we  hear  the 
mere  mental  philosopher,  when  he  disputes  with  the  Dona- 
tists,  and  still  more  when  he  seeks  to  prove  l  the  servile 
will '  in  opposition  to  the  Pelagians  !  The  ecstasies  also,  of 
which  the  vestiges  are  found  in  his  confessions,  and  which 
put  him  in  the  condition  of  those  who  have  prophetic  visions, 
show  what  a  dominion  fancy,  the  mother  of  mysticism,  had 
over  him.  It  might,  indeed,  be  objected  that  we  ought  to 
consider  the  age  of  Augustine.  But  even  in  his  latter  age, 
during  his  contests  with  the  Pelagians,  striking  traces  are 
seen  of  the  mystic  mode  of  thinking,  particularly  in  his 
assertions  respecting  the  grace  of  God.  Fancy,  therefore, 


AUGUSTINE   AND   HIS   EXPERIENCE.  28"J 

and  sagacity  were  combined  in  him  in  a  manner  wholly 
peculiar,  without  our  being  able  to  say  that  either  prepon 
derated  over  the  other.  This  peculiar  combination,  by 
which  he  was  at  once  a  mystic  and  a  scholastic,  is  the  great 
est  singularity  in  Augustine.  In  full  accordance  with  this 
peculiarity,  or  sufficiently  explained  by  it,  are  both  his  ear 
nest  effort  for  truth  and  his  devout  disposition. —  his  deep 
religious  feeling,  which  speaks  forth  in  so  lovely  a  manner, 
particularly  where  he  is  not  acting  the  polemic,  e.  g.  in  the 
Confessions,  and  which  must  have  made  him  abhor  that 
pride  of  human  virtue  which  ascribes  a  merit  to  its  own 
works. 

"Augustine  had  by  nature  an  excessive  propensity  to  the 
pleasures  of  sense,  of  which  he  often  complains  himself,  and 
which  was  also  confirmed  by  the  early  errors  of  his  youth. 
This  propensity  must  in  due  time  have  led  him  to  mysti 
cism.  For,  when  it  afterwards  became  more  intellectual,  his 
fancy  must  needs  have  revelled  in  a  world  above  sense ;  and 
this  readily  affords  a  psychological  explanation  of  the  fact 
that  his  love  to  God  was  never  entirely  free  from  a  tinge  of 
sensuous  love.  As  a  necessary  consequence,  the  new  Pla 
tonic  philosophy,  which,  from  its  mystic  tendency,  was  well 
adapted  to  his  mind,  confirmed  him  still  more  in  this  mode 
of  thinking. 

"  From  what  has  been  said,  we  may  readily  infer  that 
Augustine  possessed  much  natural  kindness,  and  a  delicate 
susceptibility  for  friendship.  But  the  acuteness  of  his 
understanding  inclined  him  freely  to  admit  consequences 
from  principles  once  established,  even  when  repugnant  to 
his  moral  feeling.  Hence  was  he  so  formidable  a  disputant. 
The  study  of  Aristotle's  works  had  certainly  a  very  salu 
tary  influence  on  his  consecutive  mode  of  thinking.  Against 
24* 


282  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

the  justness  of  his  conclusions  no  objection  can  easily  be 
made,  if  we  only  admit  the  principles. '? 

On  this  I  would  suggest,  that  it  is,  beyond  all  doubt,  pos 
sible  not  only  to  mix  sensuous  love  with  the  love  of  God, 
but  also  to  create  a  false  religious  experience,  of  which  God 
shall  be  the  nominal  object,  but  all  the  elements  of  which 
shall  be  sensual.  Such  an  experience  seems  to  be  intima 
ted  in  the  writings  of  Hafiz,  and  other  eastern  mystics.  Nor 
is  it  uncommon  to  denote  such  religious  excitement  by  the 
term  mysticism.  The  term,  I  am  aware,  is  also  used,  in  a 
better  sense,  to  denote  a  true  and  powerful  inward  experi 
ence  of  the  love  of  God.  But  this  ambiguity  of  usage 
makes  it  the  more  important  not  to  leave  the  remarks  of 
Wiggers  unguarded.  If  he  means  that  the  love  of  Augus 
tine  towards  God  was  mystical  in  the  sense  of  being 
improperly  tinged  by  sensualism,  I  beg  leave  to  dissent  from 
his  view.  It  is  well  known  by  all,  that  God  has  so  made 
material  things  that  they  are  analogous  to  spiritual  things. 
Is  not  light  analogous  to  truth,  heat  to  powerful  love, 
water  and  food  to  the  nutriment  of  the  soul  which  is  found 
in  truth  and  love,  and  harmony  in  sounds  to  mental  har 
mony  among  spirits  1  Is  not  the  relation  of  God  to  man 
set  forth  by  analogies  taken  from  a  human  father  or  a 
mother,  or  from  the  sun.  or  from  a  rock  or  a  fortress  ?  Is 
it.  then,  sensual  to  think  of  God,  or. to  love  God,  by  the  aid 
of  such  analogies  ?  This  would  condemn  the  greater  part 
of  the  religious  experience  of  the  Bible ;  for  it  is  always 
expressed  by  means  of  such  analogies.  Suppose,  then.  *hat 
we  pass  from  such  analogies  as  these,  to  another,  n^  less 
scriptural,  and  eminently  elevated  and  sacred, —  I  mean  the 
relation  of  the  lover  and  the  beloved,  the  bridegroom  and  the 
bride,  the  husband  and  the  wife.  This  analogy  is,  in  fact, 
no  more  material,  no  more  sensual,  than  those  of  which  I 


AUGUSTINE    AND    HIS   EXPERIENCE. 

have  spoken,  and  others  of  the  same  kind.  So  far  as  they 
are  material,  they  all  stand  on  exactly  the  same  ground. 
Nor  is  it  any  more  sensual  or  material  to  illustrate  the  love 
of  God  by  the  relations  of  the  bridegroom  and  the  bride, 
than  it  is  by  the  analogies  of  light,  heat,  an  earthly  father, 
the  sun,  a  shield,  a  rock  or  a  fortress. 

I  concede  that  by  the  analogy  of  the  bridegroom  and  the 
bride  an  appeal  is  made  to  the  strongest  human  passions, 
and  that  these  are  often  corrupted.  But  it  is  no  less  true 
that  a  love  of  God  may  exist  so  spiritual,  so  pure,  so 
powerful,  that  it  shall  altogether  transcend  the  power  of 
such  passions  and  emotions,  and  subordinate,  purify,  regu 
late,  and  control  them,  and  impart  to  them  a  sanctity  un 
known  before;  by  using  them  as  the  emblems  of  a  higher 
love.  If  the  higher  love  is  wanting  or  feeble,  the  use  of 
such  emblems  is  dangerous  :  if  that  love  is  as  it  should  be, 
it  is  safe.  That  this  higher  love  did  exist  in  full  power  in 
Augustine,  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt.  It  ruled  his  mind, 
and  subordinated  and  sanctified  all  the  analogies  by  which  it 
was  expressed.  Indeed,  he  has  given  us  a  definite  state 
ment  of  his  views  and  experience  upon  this  point.  Appeal 
ing  to  God,  he  says  : 

' '  Not  with  doubting,  but  with  assured  consciousness,  do 
I  love  thee,  0  Lord.  *  *  But  what  do  I  love,  when  I  love 
thee  ?  Not  beauty  of  bodies,  nor  the  fair  harmony  of  time, 
nor  the  brightness  of  the  light  so  gladsome  to  our  eyes,  nor 
sweet  melodies  of  varied  songs,  nor  the  fragrant  smell  of 
flowers  and  ointments  and  spices  ;  not  manna  and  honey  ;  not 
a  corporeal  form,  beautiful  to  embrace.  None  of  these  I 
love,  when  I  love  my  God  ;  and  yet  I  love  a  kind  of  light, 
and  melody,  and  fragrance,  and  food,  and  embraces,  when  I 
love  my  God ;  the  light,  melody,  fragrance,  food,  embraces, 
of  my  inner  man ;  where  there  shineth  unto  my  soul  what 


284  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

space  cannot  contain,  and  there  soundeth  what  time  beareth 
not  away;  and  there  is  fragrance  which  breathing  dis- 
perseth  not,  and  food  is  tasted  which  eating  diminisheth 
not,  and  there  are  embraces  which  satiety  dissolveth  not. 
This  is  it  which  I  love,  when  I  love  my  God."  (Confess 
ions  x.  vi.  8.)  What  can  more  perfectly  and  beautifully  ex 
plain  the  passages  to  which  Wiggers  refers  as  proofs  of 
mysticism  ?  Does  it  not  divest  them  entirely  of  all  tinge 
of  sensual  love  in  any  improper  sense  ?  The  full  passage 
with  reference  to  sucking  the  milk  of  God  will  show  that 
Wiggers  has  not  done  justice  to  Augustine  in  so  brief  a 
reference.  Addressing  God,  he  says  :  "  What  am  I  to  my 
self,  without  thee,  but  a  guide  to  mine  own  downfall  ?  Or, 
what  am  I  when  truly  blessed,  but  an  infant  sucking  the 
milk  thou  givest,  and  feeding  upon  Thee,  the  food  that 
perisheth  not?"  Who,  that  has  heard  God  saying,  "As 
one  whom  his  mother  comforteth,  so  will  I  comfort  you," 
or,  "I  am  the  bread  of  life,"  can  take  exception  to  Augus 
tine's  touching  expression  of  filial  dependence  and  love 
towards  God  ?  Did  not  David  thirst  for  God  ;  and  when  he 
found  him  did  he  not  declare  that  in  the  enjoyment  of  his 
love  his  soul  was  satisfied  as  with  marrow  and  fatness,  and 
that  his  loving-kindness  was  better  than  life  ?  In  a  simi 
lar  style,  also,  does  Augustine  thus  lament  his  former  in 
gratitude :  "Thou  light  of  my  heart,  thou  bread  of  my 
inmost  soul,  thou  power  who  givest  vigor  to  my  mind,  and 
who  quickenest  my  thoughts,  I  loved  Thee  not.  *  *  Too 
late  loved  I  thee,  0  thou  beauty  of  ancient  days,  yet  ever 
new  !  too  late  I  loved  thee  !  *  *  Thou  didst  call  and 
ehout,  and  my  deafness  ceased ;  thou  didst  flash  and  shine, 
and  my  blind  eyes  were  opened.  Thou  breathedst  odors,  and 
1  have  inhaled  them,  and  pant  for  thee.  I  tasted,  and 
hunger  and  thirst.  Thou  touchedst  me,  and  I  burned  for 


AUGUSTINE   AND    HIS    EXPERIENCE.  285 

thy  peace.  When  I  shall,  with  my  whole  self,  cleave  to 
thee,  then  I  shall  no  more  have  sorrow  or  labor,  and  my  life 
shall  wholly  live  as  wholly  full  of  thee."  *  *  "  And  some 
times  thou  admittest  me  to  an  unusual  affection  in  my 
inmost  soul ;  rising  to  a  strange  sweetness,  which,  if  it  were 
perfected  in  me,  I  know  not  what  in  it  would  not  belong  to 
the  life  to  come." 

And  through  what  process  did  Augustine  pass,  in  order  to 
reach  such  visions  of  God,  and  such  seasons  of  heavenly 
communion  with  him?  In  this  respect,  his  experience 
and  that  of  Edwards  were  the  same.  Both  had  seasons  of 
deep  and  unutterable  conviction  of  sin ;  both  learned  deeply 
to  loathe  themselves,  and  to  long,  with  intense  longing,  to 
eradicate  the  roots  of  pride,  that  most  dangerous  and 
deepest  defilement  of  lofty,  highly-gifted  minds.  With 
regard  to  this,  Augustine  says  to  his  God :  "  Thou  knowest, 
on  this  matter,  the  groans  of  my  heart  and  the  floods  of  my 
eyes.  For  I  cannot  learn  how  far  I  am  advanced  in  being 
cleansed  from  this  plague ;  and  I  much  fear  my  secret  sins, 
which  thine  eyes  know  and  mine  do  not."  *  *  "  Fain 
would  I  that  the  approbation  of  another  should  not  increase 
my  joy  for  any  good  in  me."  How  truly  coincident  is  this 
last  expression  with  the  statement  of  Edwards,  before 
quoted, — "The  very  thought  of  any  joy  arising  in  me,  on 
any  consideration  of  my  own  amiableness,  performances  or 
experiences,  or  any  goodness  of  heart  or  life,  is  nauseous  and 
detestable  to  me."  Yet  was  he  constantly  afflicted  by  con 
scious  tendencies  to  pride.  Augustine,  in  like  manner, 
calls  this  "  his  daily  furnace,"  the  constant  affliction  of  his 
soul.  He  desired  in  all  things  to  see  and  honor  God,  and 
to  him  he  confessed  that  he  ought  to  value  fame  solely  for 
benevolent  ends.  "  Behold,  in  thee,  0  Truth,  I  see  that  I 
ought  not  to  be  moved  at  my  own  praises,  for  my  own  sake, 


286  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

but  for  the  good  of  my  neighbor."  Knowing,  as  he  did, 
the  treachery  of  his  heart,  he  earnestly  sought  the  se*arching 
of  the  omniscient  eye. 

To  this  brief  view  of  the  Christian  experience  of  Augus 
tine  it  may  be  added,  that  he  was  naturally  a  man  of  ge 
nial,  humane  and  tender  feelings.  We  see  in  him,  therefore, 
no  tendencies  to  a  stern  theology,  unless  there  is  in  man  a 
sternness  of  depravity  that  calls  for  stern  measures  of  jus 
tice  on  the  part  of  God,  whilst,  at  the  same  time,  it  opens 
the  way  for  the  interposition  of  sovereign  grace.  If  such  is, 
in  fact,  the  character  of  man,  then  it  is  to  be  expected  that 
one  like  Augustine  would  arrive  at  a  profound  and  unwa 
vering  conviction  of  the  fact. 

On  the  whole,  we  need  not  wonder  that  Augustine  has 
had  so  long-continued  a  sway  over  the  human  mind.  He 
had  the  fervor,  the  deep  passion  and  the  imagination,  of  an 
oriental  temperament;  and  yet  with  it  was  combined  the 
keen  logic  of  a  western  mind.  He  was  master  of  all  the 
learning  of  his  age  that  was  accessible  in  the  Latin  tongue. 
Though  like  Edwards  in  the  union  of  logical  power  with  a 
profound  experience,  he  greatly  surpassed  him-  in  rhetorical 
power ;  for  he  had  studied  rhetoric  as  an  art,  and  had 
taught  it  before  he  became  a  Christian  bishop.  Hence,  his 
style  is  universally  more  rhetorical  and  finished  than  that 
of  Edwards. 

Is  it  to  be  wondered  at  that  such  men  as  Bernard, 
Anselm,  Thomas  Aquinas,  Luther,  Calvin,  Jansenius,  and 
Pascal,  should  be  drawn  by  a  sympathetic  attraction  to  the 
profound  doctrinal  and  experimental  discussions  of  such  a 
mind  ?  Or  that,  from  age  to  age,  they  should  light  their 
lamps  at  his  fire  ? 

There  is  in  the  Agamemnon  of  ^Eschylus  a  beautiful  and 
brilliant  passage,  in  which  Clytemnestra  describes'  the  trans- 


AUGUSTINE    AND    HIS   EXPERIENCE.  287 

mission  to  herself  by  signal  fires,  kindled  successively  on 
mountain-tops,  of  the  intelligence  of  the  downfall  of  Troy. 
If  we  will  substitute  in  it  the  idea  of  time  instead  of  space, 
we  may  use  it  as  a  lively  image  of  the  mode  in  which  the 
fires  of  Christian  doctrine  and  experience  have  been  trans 
mitted  from  Augustine  down  the  tract  of  time,  kindling 
upon  one  mountain-top  after  another,  till  they  reach  the 
remotest  ages. 

I  give  the  passage  in  the  translation  of  Potter.  Though 
slightly  inaccurate,  it  is  equally  good  for  my  purpose.  In 
reply  to  the  inquiry  what  herald  conveyed  the  news,  Cly- 
temnestra  answers : 

"  The  fire,  that  from  the  height  of  Ida  sent 
Its  streaming  light,  as  from  the  announcing  flame 
Torch  blazed  to  torch.     First  Ida  to  the  steep 
Of  Lemnos  :  Athos'  sacred  height  received 
The  mighty  splendor  ;  from  the  surging  back 
Of  the  Hellespont  the  vigorous  blaze  held  on 
Its  smiling  way,  and  like  the  orient  sun 
Illumes  with  golden-gleaming  rays  the  head 
Of  rocky  Macetas  ;  nor  lingers  there, 
Nor  winks  unheedful,  but  its  warning  flames 
Darts  to  the  streams  of  Euripus,  and  gives 
Its  glittering  signal  to  the  guards  that  hold 
Their  high  watch  on  Mesapius.     These  enkindle 
The  joy-announcing  fires,  that  spread  the  blaze 
To  where  Erica  hoar  its  shaggy  brow 
Waves  rudely.     Unimpaired  the  active  flame 
Bounds  o'er  the  level  of  Asopus,  like 
The  jocund  moon,  and  on  Citheeron's  steep 
Wakes  a  successive  flame  ;  the  distant  watch 
Agnize  its  shine,  and  raise  a  brighter  fire, 
That,  o'er  the  lake  Gorgopis  streaming,  holds 
Its  rapid  course,  and  on  the  mountainous  heights 
Of  ^Egiplanctus  huge,  swift-shooting  spreads 
The  lengthened  line  of  light.     Thence  onwards  waves 
Its  fiery  tresses,  eager  to  ascend 
The  crags  of  Prone,  frowning  in  their  pride 


288  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

O'er  the  Saronic  gulf:  it  leaps,  it  mounts 
The  summit  of  Arachne,  whose  high  head 
Looks  down  on  Argos  :  to  this  royal  seat 
Thence  darts  the  light  that  from  the  Idsean  fire 
Derives  its  birth.     Rightly  in  order  thus 
Each  to  the  next  consigns  the  torch,  that  fills 
The  bright  succession." 

To  complete  the  image,  however,  we  should  remember  on 
what  mountain  and  by  whom  the  fire  was  kindled  that  first 
shone  on  Augustine.  It  was  kindled  by  Paul  and  his  com 
peers  on  Zion,  the  mountain  of  our  God. 


CHAPTER   V. 

AUGUSTINE'S    PRINCIPLES    OF    EQUITY    AND 
HONOR. 

WE  have  seen  that  before  Augustine  all  things,  especially 
in  the  oriental  church,  had  taken  such  a  course  that,  in 
efforts  to  defend  God,  two  results  had  come  to  pass.  The 
standard  of  the  original  righteousness  which  God  ought  to 
confer  on  new-created  minds  was  lowered ;  and,  also,  that 
superficial  views  had  been  given  of  the  deep  original  deprav 
ity  of  man.  The  result  was,  that  neither  subject  was  truly 
seen.  The  principles  of  honor  and  right  were  unduly 
degraded,  the  character  of  man  was  unduly  exalted.  This 
is  the  necessary  result  of  endeavoring  to  justify  God  on  the 
assumption  that  this  is  our  first  state  of  existence.  And 
yet,  even  so,  no  available  harmony  was  secured. 

It  was  reserved  for  Augustine  to  restore  each  of  these 
subjects  to  its  true  place  in  the  system,  and  to  attempt  to 
effect  a  harmony  between  them. 

I  shall  consider,  in  order,  first,  what  he  endeavored  to  do 
on  each  of  these  great  points,  the  principles  of  honor  and 
right,  the  original  and  deep  depravity  of  man,  and  then  set 
forth  the  mode  of  harmonizing  these  moving  powers  of 
Christianity  which  he  proposed  and  defended. 

In  general,  then,  I  remark  that  he  entirely  abandoned 

all  efforts  to  prove  that  men,  as  they  enter  this  world,  have 

such  constitutions,  propensities  and  powers,  as  the  principles 

of  equity  and  honor  require  God  to  confer  on  new-created 

25 


290  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

minds.  He  clearly  conceded  and  fully  taught  that  this  was 
not  the  fact.  To  make  this  plain,  it  is  only  necessary  to 
consider  his  principles  of  equity  and  honor,  and  his  views 
of  men  as  they  enter  this  world. 

We  come,  then,  to  the  fundamental  question  on  which 
this  present  discussion  turns, —  What  were  the  principles  of 
honor  and  right,  as  held  by  Augustine  ? 

1  reply,  Augustine  held  that  the  principles  of  honor  and 
right  demand  of  the  great  Creator  that  he  should  give  to 
all  new-created  minds  such  an  original  constitution,  and 
such  powers,  and  place  them  in  such  circumstances  and 
under  such  influences,  that  they  should  enjoy  a  full  and  fail- 
probation,  in  which  they  had  full  power,  by  their  own  free 
will,  to  secure  a  permanent  confirmation  in  holiness  and 
eternal  life.  These  principles  were  not  incidentally  avowed 
by  Augustine,  but  were  fully,  formally  and  scientifically 
set  forth :  not  merely  in  his  early  writings,  but  in  his  last 
and  most  mature  works,  and  especially  in  his  treatise,  De 
Correptione  'et  Gratia  (concerning  reproof  and  grace), 
addressed  to  the  Adrumettian  monks,  near  the  close  of  his 
labors  in  the  Pelagian  controversy.  Without  going  into 
any  analysis  of  that  or  any  other  work  as  a  whole,  I  will 
merely  state  what  pertains  to  the  point  now  under  consid 
eration. 

The  constitution  and  powers  which  he  regarded  as  de 
manded  of  God  for  new-created  beings  by  the  principles  of 
honor  and  right,  were  such  as  result  in  a  true  and  real  free 
will.  The  influence  and  circumstances  demanded  of  God 
are  such  that  this  free  will  shall  not  be  left  to  its  own 
unaided  energies,  but  shall  be  so  invigorated  and  sustained 
by  divine  influence  that  the  creatures  shall  be  able  always 
so  to  choose  the  right,  and  persevere  therein,  that  the  result 
shall  be  an  eternal  confirmation  in  good. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PRINCIPLES  OF  EQUITY.  291 

In  accordance  with  these  views,  Augustine  asserts  con 
cerning  the  angels  that  they  were,  when  created,  endowed 
with  the  requisite  powers,  and  aided  by  the  necessary  divine 
influence ;  and  that  some  of  them,  by  their  own  free  will, 
revolted,  whilst  others  so  persevered  in  good  as  to  merit 
final  confirmation  in  holiness  and  eternal  life.  A  single 
extract  will  make  this  point  sufficiently  plain : 

' '  God  so  ordered  the  life  of  angels  and  men,  that  in  it  he 
might  first  show  what  their  free  will  could  effect,  and  then 
what  the  beneficence  of  his  grace  and  the  judgment  of  his 
justice  could  effect.  Accordingly,  certain  angels,  of  whom 
he  is  the  chief  who  is  called  the  devil,  fled  from  the  service 
of  the  Lord  God.  by  free  will.  But,  thus  escaping  from 
his  goodness,  in  which  they  had  been  happy,  they  were  not 
able  to  escape  his  judgment,  by  which  they  were  rendered 
most  miserable.  But  the  rest,  through  the  same  free  will, 
continued  in  the  truth,  and  merited  and  received  a  certain 
assurance  that  they  should  never  fall." 

It  appears  from  this  that  God  dealt  with  angels  and  men 
on  the  same  principles.  What  those  principles  were  will  be 
more  clearly  disclosed  in  what  he  subsequently  sets  forth 
concerning  God's  providential  dealings  with  men.  Let  us, 
then,  consider  on  what  principles,  according  to  Augustine, 
God  dealt  with  man : 

1 '  So,  also,  he  made  man  with  free  will,  and,  although 
about  to  fall,  yet  happy  during  his  ignorance  of  it,  because 
he  perceived  that  it  was  in  his  power  both  not  to  die  and 
not  to  become  miserable.  In  which  state  of  uprightness 
and  freedom  from  sin,  if  through  the  same  free  will  he  had 
chosen  to  remain,  truly,  without  any  experience  of  death  or 
unhappiness,  he  would  have  received,  through  the  merit  of 
this  perseverance,  the  same  fulness  of  blessedness  with  which 
the  holy  angels  were  rewarded;  that  is,  that  he  should 


292  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

never  after  be  able  to  fall,  and  that  he  should  have  certain 
assurance  thereof." 

Thus  far,  Augustine  has  spoken  in  general  terms  con 
cerning  the  original  powers  and  free  will  of  men  and  angels. 
A  more  particular  view  of  what  was  implied  in  the  original 
state  of  his  mind  may  be  gathered  from  other  parts  of  his 
works.  He  particularly  states  that  God  so  made  man  that 
he  had  a  perfectly  faultless  and  sinless  nature.  He  asks, 
"  Who  does  not  know  that  man  was  made  sane,  and  fault 
less,  and  furnished  with  free  will,  and  free  power  for  holy 
living?"  (De  Nat.  et.  Gr.  43.)  His  intellect  was  in  the 
most  perfect  state.  ' '  Such  was  his  power  of  mind,  and  use 
of  reason,  that  Adam  docilely  received  the  precept  of  God 
and  the  law  of  commandment,  and  might  easily  have  kept 
them  if  he  would."  (Ib.)  He  ascribes  to  him  uthe  most 
excellent  wisdom."  He  says,  also,  that  in  the  inward  man 
Adam  was  spiritual,  after  the  image  of  Him  that  created 
him.  (De  Gen.  ad  Lit.  vi.  28.)  He  asserts  the  same  in 
the  following  passage  :  ' l  Not  only  Genesis,  but  also  the 
apostle,  proclaims  that  man  was  made  after  the  image  of 
God,  when  he  says  man  is  the  image  and  glory  of  God.  (1 
Cor.  11 :  7.)  And,  that  it  may  be  clearly  understood  that 
he  was  made  in  the  image  of  God,  not  according  to  his  old 
corrupt  and  sinful  nature,  but  according  to  a  spiritual  con 
stitution,  the  same  apostle  admonishes  us  (Col.  3  :  10)  that 
we  should  put  off  habits  of  sin,  that  is,  the  old  man,  and  put 
on  the  character  of  Christ,  which  he  calls  the  new  man. 
And,  that  he  may  teach  that  we  once  lost  this,  he  calls  it  a 
renovation  ;  for  he  thus  speaks,  c  Ye  have  put  on  the  new 
man,  who  is  renewed  in  knowledge  after  the  image  of  him 
who  created  him.'  '  (Contra  Adamantum  Manich.  5.) 
It  is  true  that  Augustine  very  often,  if  not  generally, 
explains  the  assertion  that  God  made  man  in  his  own  image, 


AUGUSTINE'S  PRINCIPLES  OF  EQUITY.  293 

after  his  own  likeness,  with  reference  to  his  powers  of  rea 
son,  conscience  and  will,  and  his  rule  over  the  creatures 
which  is  based  on  these  powers.  But  the  passages  already 
quoted  show  that  he  also  included  in  the  image  of  God 
true  holiness,  or  the  moral  image  of  God.  In  this  passage 
he  clearly  combines  both  ideas. 

Accordingly,  of  his  will  he  says,  "  that  it  was  constituted 
without  sin,  and  that  no  passion  resisted  it,  and  that  it  had 
such  power  that  the  decision  of  perseverance  was  properly 
left  to  such  great  goodness  and  such  great  facility  of  holy 
living."  (De  Cor.  et  Gr.  11.)  In  another  place  he  says 
that  ' '  by  free  will,  which  then  had  its  powers  uncorrupted, 
they  obeyed  the  law,  not  only  with  no  impossibility,  but 
even  with  no  difficulty,"  and  "that  man  had  so  very  free  a 
will,  that  he  obeyed  the  law  of  God  with  great  energy 
of  mind"  (Op.  Imp.  vi.  8,  and  IV.  14.) 

Yet,  with  all  this,  as  man  was  mutable,  and  but  a  limited 
creature,  it  was  not  safe  to  leave  him  entirely  to  himself. 
God  only,  the  infinite  Creator,  is  above  all  temptation  and 
all  danger  of  falling.  Man,  therefore,  left  to  himself,  could 
not  always  extricate  himself  from  danger,  nor  insure  his 
own  perseverance  in  good.  Hence,  it  was  necessary  that 
God  should  confer  on  him  an  additional  divine  influence, 
by  way  of  aid  and  support ;  and,  accordingly,  he  bestowed 
the  requisite  aid.  By  this  aid,  perseverance  in  good  was 
put  entirely  within  the  power  of  man,  and  yet  still  he  was 
not  forced  to  persevere,  nor  was  his  free  will  coerced.  Even 
this  aid  he  could  abandon.  After  describing  the  nature  of 
this  additional  aid,  he  says  :  "It  was,  therefore,  in  his 
power  to  remain,  if  he  would,  because  the  aid  was  not  want 
ing  by  which  he  could,  and  without  which  he  could  not, 
perseveringly  retain  the  good  which  he  would.  But,  bo- 
cause  he  refused  to  persevere,  truly  it  was  his  fault,  whos* 


294  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

merit  it  would  have  been  if  he  had  chosen  to  persevere,  as 
did  the  holy  angels,  who,  whilst  others  fell  by  free  will,  stood 
by  the  same  free  will,  and  deserved  to  receive  the  due 
reward  of  this  permanence  in  good, —  that  is,  so  great  a  ful 
ness  of  blessedness  as  is  involved  in  a  certain  assurance 
that  they  shall  never  fall."  (De.  Cor.  et  Gr.  11.) 

We  can  now  decide  how  high  Augustine  carried  his  ideas 
of  the  demands  of  honor  and  right,  by  considering  whether 
he  regarded  this  superadded  influence  as  a  matter  of  grace 
or  of  debt.  Probably  those  who  have  not  particularly 
examined  the  matter  will  be  surprised  to  hear  that  he 
regarded  even  this  aid  as  a  matter  of  debt,  and  not  of  grace. 
His  words  are  very  explicit : 

1  l  If  this  aid  had  been  wanting  either  to  an  angel  or  to 
men,  when  they  were  first  created,  their  fall  would  have 
involved  no  guilt,  since  their  nature  was  not  made  such 
that  without  divine  aid  they  could  insure  their  own  perse 
verance  in  good,  even  if  they  would,  and  the  aid  was  want 
ing  without  which  they  could  not  insure  perseverance." 

Augustine  says  this,  as  Neander  well  remarks,  on  the 
ground  that  "  God  is  the  absolute  spirit,  without  whose 
fellowship,  without  whose  support  and  assistance,  no  creat- 
urely  spirit,  whether  angel  or  man,  can  persevere  in  good 
ness,  in  the  sound  and  healthy  development  of  his  essential 
being,  which  is  akin  to  the  divine."  (Neander,  n.  604.) 
Therefore,  Augustine  boldly  and  decidedly  takes  the  ground 
that  if  the  divine  aid  which  puts  such  perseverance  in  good 
fully  into  the  power  of  every  new-created  mind  is  wanting, 
then  no  guilt  is  involved  in  the  fall  of  such  a  mind. 

It  is  deeply  interesting  and  affecting  to  read  such  state  • 
ments  as  these  from  the  great  father  of  what  are  considered 
the  stern  doctrines  of  Calvinism.  Certainly  such  sentiments 
find  a  response  in  every  generous  and  honorable  mind. 


AUGUSTINE'S  PRINCIPLES  OF  EQUITY.  295 

Our  moral  intuitions  declare  them  to  be  true.  They  place 
in  a  most  striking  light  the  obligations  of  the  great  Creator 
to  every  new-created  mind  of  men  or  angels. 

And  now  I  do  not  hesitate  to  ask,  Have  any  of  my  state 
ments  of  the  principles  of  honor  and  right  ever  risen  higher 
than  this  ? 

By  the  promulgation  of  such  views,  Augustine  conferred 
an  unspeakable  benefit  on  the  Christian  world.  He  elevated 
their  ideas  of  the  nature  and  possibilities  of  free  agency, 
and  erected  a  standard  by  which  to  judge  fairly  of  existing 
facts  in  the  history  of  man.  It  rendered  possible  and 
enforced  more  deep  and  thorough  views  of  human  depravity ; 
for,  surely,  no  man  can  pretend  that  men  as  they  come  into 
this  world  develop  themselves  according  to  the  law  of  new- 
created  minds,  as  laid  down  by  Augustine. 

The  actual  influence,  too,  of  these  views,  has  been  great. 
We  find  a  constant  reference  to  them  in  Anselm  and  other 
great  thinkers  of  profound  Christian  experience  during  the 
middle  ages.  They  were  recognized  and  reproduced  by  the 
Reformers.  They  have  given  form  to  the  language  of  the 
Westminster  standards.  The  original  righteousness  of  the 
new-created  man,  the  fact  that  he  was  left  to  the  freedom  of 
his  own  will,  and  that  his  sin  was  his  own  free,  unforced, 
and  therefore  criminal  act, —  all  these  are  purely  Augus- 
tiriian  conceptions,  reproduced  in  almost  his  own  terms, 
after  a  lapse  of  ages. 

With  such  a  standard  of  original  righteousness,  and  with 
such  an  experience  as  Augustine  had  of  the  deep  depravity 
of  his  own  heart,  the  disorder  of  his  passions  and  appetites, 
and  the  moral  impotence  of  his  own  will, —  knowing,  too, 
what  he  did,  by  the  increasing  restoration  of  his  own  powers 
to  their  normal  state,  of  the  original  relations  of  the  human 
mind  to  God, —  can  it  be  wondered  at  that  he  took  deep  views  & 


296  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

of  the  depravity  of  men  as  they  now  are?  His  doctrine  is 
what  we  should  have  anticipated  from  these  facts, —  that 
men  enter  this  world  with  deranged  constitutions  and  disor 
ganized  powers  of  soul  and  body,  their  intellectual  powers 
darkened  by  sin  and  blind  to  the  true  beauty  of  God  and 
spiritual  things,  their  wills  in  a  state  of  moral  impotence  as 
to  that  which  is  holy  and  good,  their  propensities,  passions 
and  affections,  deeply  corrupt.  Such  was  man,  in  his  view, 
as  an  individual ;  and,  being  such,  he  is  also  subjected  to  the 
power  of  depraved  human  society,  and  of  evil  spirits. 

In  these  deep  views  of  Augustine,  too,  we  recognize  a 
fountain-head  of  thought  and  doctrine  for  the  profound 
thinkers  and  experienced  Christians  of  all  following  ages. 

But  how  could  Augustine  hold  such  views  consistently 
with  his  doctrines  of  equity  and  of  honor  ? 

In  answering  this  inquiry,  we  shall  see  that,  although 
Augustine  stood  on  the  verge  of  truth,  and  even  reached  it 
in  the  form  of  his  words,  yet  he  failed,  through  adverse 
influences  which  he  had  not  surmounted,  to  reach  it  in  fact ; 
and,  therefore,  left  the  great  conflict  of  the  moving  powers 
of  Christianity,  more  fully  developed  than  ever  before,  to 
agitate  and  divide  all  coming  ages. 


frj-^> 

\t^ 


CHAPTER    v. 

AUGUSTINE'S  THEORY  OF  RECONCILIATI',^      v 

I  HAVE  said  that  Augustine  in  his  theory  of  reconcil 
iation  stood  on  the  verge  of  truth,  and  that  he  even  reached 
it  in  the  form  of  his  words.  Let  us  proceed  to  consider  the 
development  of  his  theory. 

His  whole  system  turned  upon  the  position  that  all  the 
claims  of  all  men  on  God.  as  new-created  beings,  had  been 
already  forfeited,  even  before  they  were  born.  So  far,  then, 
Augustine  coincided  with  the  theory  of  preexistence.  He 
escaped  from  the  pressure  of  his  own  principles  by  the  great 
idea  of  A  FORFEITURE  PREVIOUS  TO  BIRTH. 

Did  Augustine,  then,  believe  in  the  proper  preoxistence 
of  men  ;  and  that  they  had  sinned  ea,ch  separately,  and  in 
his  own  proper  person,  before  their  birth  into  this  world '? 

We  answer  no.  But,  nevertheless,  he  tried,  by  a  dif 
ferent  kind  of  preexistence,  to  account  for  and  to  justify 
such  appalling  results  as  occur  in  this  world.  He  supposed 
and  believed  that  all  men  so  preexisted  in  Adam  that  they 
could  and  did  act  in  his  act,  and  forfeit  together  all  of  their 
rights,  in  that  great  and  original  forfeiture  of  Adam. 

This  is,  indeed,  a  kind  of  preexistence  that  is  available 
only  through  the  imagination,  and  not  through  the  reason, — 
yet  it  gave  to  much  of  his  language  the  form  of  truth.  He 
spoke  of  men  as  if  they  had  preexisted,  enjoyed  their  rights 


298  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

and  forfeited  them :  and  this  language  reacted  through  hia 
imagination  on  his  feelings,  and  gave  him  relief.  By  the 
aid  of  this  fiction  of  the  imagination,  when  men  were  born 
into  the  world  he  did  not  look  on  them  as  properly  new- 
created  beings,  or  as  having  the  rights  of  new-created 
beings,  but  as  beings  who  were  created  six  thousand  years 
before  they  were  born,  and  who,  at  the  time  of  their  crea 
tion,  received  from  God  all  the  rights  of  new-created  beings ; 
and,  soon  after,  freely  and  wickedly  forfeited  them,  and  so 
came  at  that  time  under  his  just  judgment  and  condemna 
tion,  and  have  been  born  under  them  ever  since. 

God,  he  taught,  gave  to  the  whole  human  race  a  good 
original  constitution,  good  powers,  free  will  and  divine  aid, 
in  Adam.  But  in  him  they  abandoned  this  aid.  This  is 
what  Augustine  means  by  the  statement,  "  Which  aid  if 
man  had  not  forsaken  by  free  will,  he  would  always  have 
been  good ;  but  he  forsook  it,  and  was  forsaken.  For  the 
aid  was  such  that  he  could  t forsake  it  when  he  chose,  and  in 
it  he  could  persevere  if  he  chose."  *  *  *  "For  he 
had  power  even  to  persevere,  if  he  would ;  but  that  he 
refused  proceeded  (descendit)  from  free  will,  which  then 
was  so  free  that  it  could  choose  both  right  and  wrong.  But, 
now,  in  the  case  of  those  to  whom  this  aid  is  wanting,  it  is 
the  punishment  of  sin ;  and  in  the  case  of  those  to  whom  it 
is  given,  it  is  given  by  grace,  and  not  of  debt.'1  (De  Cor. 
et  Gr.  11.)  MAN,  in  all  these  passages,  means  not 
merely  Adam,  but  the  race.  Let  it  be  also  considered  that 
the  fact  that  men  have  not  now  the  original  aid,  is  the 
penalty  of  their  original  forfeiture. 

Once  more  I  would  call  particular  attention  to  the  fact 
that  Augustine,  in  his  own  peculiar  way,  reached,  at  least 
ideally,  a  theory  of  preexistence,  upon  which,  after  all,  the 
depth  and  power  of  his  system  depended.  It  enabled  him 


AUGUSTINE'S  THEORY  or  RECONCILIATION.        299 

at  least  verbally  to  conceive  and  to  speak  of  every  man,  as 
he  is  born  into  this  world,  as  a  being  already  fallen  by  his 
own  act,  and  who  by  his  sin  had  forfeited  all  claims  to  his 
original  rights  as  a  new-created  being,  and  who  had  thus 
fallen  under  the  principles  of  just  sovereignty. 

It  is  also  worthy  of  special  notice  that  Augustine 
ascribed  to  the  original  free  will  of  man  such  self-deter 
mining  power  as  to  exempt  it  entirely  from  the  decree  of 
predestination.  He  did  not  deny,  on  general  grounds,  such 
freedom  of  the  will.  He  did  not,  as  has  often  been  alleged, 
subject  it  to  a  fatal  necessity  on  universal  principles.  He 
did  it  merely  in  the  case  of  fallen  man.  In  Adam  all  men 
were  free,  and  enjoyed  in  full  perfection  the  self- determining 
power  of  the  will.  No  divine  purpose  interposed  to  con 
trol  its  use.  They  were  left  to  the  freedom  of  their  own 
will.  That  freedom  they  abused  and  fell,  and  in  this  state 
the  principles  of  predestination  first  reached  them.  Thus, 
predestination  did  not  cause  their  fall.  In  Adam,  on  the 
other  hand,  they  had  perfect  free  will,  and  all  needed  divine 
aid.  Therefore,  that  first  and  universal  fall  was  not  pre 
destined.  It  was  the  result  of  mere  free  will ;  and  was, 
therefore,  without  excuse.  Thus,  in  words  at  least,  and  in 
appearance,  did  Augustine  reach  a  theory  of  preexistence, 
and  by  it  maintain  his  principles  of  honor  and  right,  and 
vindicate  the  ways  of  God  to  man.  Stated  in  his  own 
words,  his  theory  is,  "  Because  by  free  will  he  forsook  God, 
he  experienced  the  just  judgment  of  God,  that  he  should 
be  condemned  with  his  whole  race ;  for,  since  they  all  were, 
as  yet,  existing  in  him,  they  also  had  sinned  in  him.  For, 
as  many  of  this  race  as  are  set  free  by  the  grace  of  God 
are  freed  from  that  condemnation  by  which  they  are  thus 
held  bound.  Whence,  also,  if  no  one  had.  been  liberated, 
no  one  could  justly  blame  the  judgment  of  God." 


300  CONFLICT    OF    AGES 

On  these  views  Neander  remarks  (vol.  n.  265).  "  In 
this  way  he  could  still  hold  fast  at  one  point  to  the  holiness 
and  justice  of  God,  and  to  the  free  guilt  of  man :  could 
remove  the  origin  of  evil  from  God,  and  push  it  back  to  the 
originally  present,  free,  self-determining  power  of  man. 
And,  by  his  supposition  of  the  necessary  and  incomprehen 
sible  connection  between  the  first  man  and  the  entire  race, 
the  act  of  the  first  man  may  be  considered  as  the  proper 
act  of  every  man ;  and  so.  on  this  ground,  the  loss  of  the 
original  freedom  is  a  loss  for  which  all  are  at  fault." 

There  is  not,  in  the  whole  history  of  the  human  mind, 
an  intellectual  phenomenon  more  remarkable,  and  in  some 
aspects  more  sublime,  than  this. 

It  is  remarkable  from  the  nature  of  the  doctrine  pro 
pounded, —  a  doctrine  which  one  would  suppose,  a  priori, 
that  no  one  could  ever  have  believed.  It  is  sublime  from 
the  extent  and  magnitude  of  the  power  which  it  in  fact 
exerted  after  it  had  been  by  Augustine  established  as  an 
article  of  belief. 

In  its  logical  bearings,  of  course  it  was  a  wide-reaching 
theory.  And  Augustine  was  not  without  serious  difficulties 
in  some  questions  of  detail  in  its  application.  But  he  was 
not  a  man  to  shrink  from  the  fair  results  of  his  own  princi 
ples.  Having  adopted  the  theory  and  caused  it  to  triumph, 
he  carried  it  out  consistently  to  all  its  consequences. 

The  forfeiture  which  he  alleged  he  never  treated  as  any 
thing  verbal.  He  regarded  it  as  an  absolute  and  fixed 
reality.  So  real  was  it,  that  even  unconscious  infants,  who 
did  not  gain  remission  by  baptism,  were,  for  it  alone,  con 
signed  at  least  to  the  penalty  of  endless  loss  of  heaven.  Not 
only  did  Augustine  inflexibly  teach  this  doctrine,  but  he 
caused  it  to  be  for  ages  the  doctrine  at  least  of  the  West 
ern  church. 


AUGUSTINE'S  THEORY  OF  RECONCILIATION.        301 

Here,  now,  we  have  a  mountain-summit  of  thought,  from 
which  we  can  survey  this  whole  great  conflict,  both  in  pre 
ceding  and  in  succeeding  ages.  We  have,  also,  a  standard 
of  comparison,  with  which  we  may  compare  the  various 
theories  of  preceding  and  of  subsequent  writers.  Let  us 
look  at  Augustine's  position. 

If  the  mode  of  forfeiture  which  he  alleged,  and  upon 
which  his  whole  defence  of  God  turned,  had  been  possible 
and  real,  then  there  would  have  been  a  place  for  the  element 
of  justice  in  his  system.  But,  as  there  was  no  real  pree'x- 
istence  and  no  real  action,  it  was  not  possible,  and  of  course 
was  not  real ;  and  therefore  his  whole  system  was,  in  reality, 
devoid  of  justice.  He  admitted  and  insisted  upon  the  very 
highest  standard  of  judgment,  when  setting  forth  the  prin 
ciples  of  honor  and  right  by  which  the  conduct  of  God 
towards  new-created  minds  should  be  judged ;  and  then,  in 
fact,  resorted  to  a  mere  verbal  evasion  of  them,  by  a  shad 
owy  and  unreal  theory  of  the  preexistence  and  action  of 
the  millions  of  the  human  race  in  Adam,  thousands  of  years 
before  they  were  born. 

Yet,  shadowy  and  baseless  as  is  this  theory,  upon  it  for 
centuries  the  doctrine  of  the  Western  church  as  to  original 
sin,  and  also  all  the  doctrines  which  grow  out  of  it,  were 
made  to  rest. 

26 


CHAPTER    VII. 

RESPONSE    OF    THE    HUMAN   MIND    TO    THE   THEORY 
OF   AUGUSTINE. 

IT  is  often  assumed  that  Augustine  developed  a  doctrine 
of  original  sin  in  which  deep  thinkers  and  men  of  a  pro 
found  Christian  consciousness  have  agreed  with  him,  in 
every  subsequent  age.  This  Prof.  Shedd  and  others 
assume  ;  and,  to  a  certain  extent,  it  is  true.  In  the  idea  of 
a  forfeiture  before  birth  they  have  agreed  with  him,  and 
also  in  the  idea  that  the  depravity  which  precedes  action  in 
this  life  is  the  result  of  that  forfeiture. 

But,  as  to  the  mode  of  explaining  the  forfeiture  itself, 
which,  after  all,  is  the  most  essential  point,  the  theory  of 
Augustine  has  not  proved  satisfactory  to  the  human  mind. 
Indeed,  as  will  soon  appear,  he  experienced  great  trouble 
from  it  himself.  One  obvious  and  striking  proof  that  it  is 
not  fitted  to  satisfy  even  the  most  orthodox  portions  of  the 
church,  is  found  in  the  fact  that  it  has  been  definitely 
renounced  in  this  country  by  the  leaders  of  the  great  body 
of  Old  School  Calvinists, —  I  mean  the  Princeton  divines. 
Instead  of  it  they  have  introduced  another  and  a  different 
theory,  the  nature  and  validity  of  which  I  have  already 
considered.  They  do  not  differ  from  Augustine  as  to  the 
fact  of  forfeiture ;  but  as  to  the  mode  of  it,  which  is,  after 
all,  the  great  question,  they  do  differ  from  him  to  the  extent 
of  utter  and  absolute  opposition.  Yet  they  assert  that  the 


RESPONSE   OF   THE   HUMAN   MIND.  303 

doctrine  taught  by  them  is  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Reform 
ers.  Again,  Prof.  Shedd  in  his  theory  differs  from  them 
both,  and  is  opposed  to  them  both.  Still  further,  Presi 
dent  Edwards  in  his  theory  diifers  from  them  all,  and  is 
opposed  to  them  all.  Once  more,  many  of  the  scholastic 
divines,  and  of  the  Reformers,  have  advanced  another 
theory,  different  from  all  the  preceding,  and  opposed  to  them 
all.  And,  finally,  Haldane  rejects  all  existing  theories  as 
unsatisfactory  and  injurious,  and  declares  that  the  only  safe 
course  is  to  rest  on  the  unexplained  assertions  of  the  word 
of  God.  Such,  then,  has  been  the  response  of  the  human 
mind  to  the  theory  of  Augustine,  and  that,  too,  after  centu 
ries  of  earnest  and  profound  discussion.  And  what  is  the 
fair  import  of  all  this  ?  Is  it  not  that  the  problem  that 
they  have  undertaken  to  solve  involves  conditions  that 
render  it  an  absurd  and  impossible  problem  ?  What  is  the 
problem  ?  It  is  to  show  how  the  human  race  could  have 
forfeited  their  rights  as  new-created  minds  before  they 
enter  this  world,  without  having  existed  and  acted  in  their 
own  persons  before  they  enter  this  world.  This  problem  is 
as  if  all  the  algebraic  skill  of  ages  were  required  to  be 
expended  on  the  equation  x*-\-x= — 7  as  given  by  inspira 
tion.  It  is  not  likely  that  they  would  ever  reach  any 
satisfactory  results ;  for  the  equation  is  absurd  and  impos 
sible.  Nor  would  it  be  any  better  to  say  that  we  must 
receive  it  as  a  profound  mystery ;  for  it  is  within  the  reach 
of  the  human  mind,  and  we  can  see  that  it  is  absurd  and 
impossible. 

But,  if  we  may  trust  the  intuitions  and  unambiguous 
testimony  of  all  ages,  the  rights  of  new-created  minds  are 
the  clearest  and  the  most  momentous  realities  in  the  universe 
of  God.  And  is  it  to  be  supposed  that  such  rights  can  be 
forfeited  at  all  before  the  existence  of  the  mind,  by  the 


304  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

action  of  which  a  forfeiture  can  be  made  ?  Is  not  the  whole 
theory  of  human  rights  of  every  kind  a  mere  mockery,  if 
the  great  foundation  rights  can  be  undermined  and  evacu 
ated  by  an  alleged  forfeiture  before  existence  ? 

Calvin  expressly  concedes  that  nothing  is  more  remote 
from  common  sense  than  that  on  account  of  the  offence  of 
one  man  all  should  be  made  guilty,  and  so  the  sin  of  one 
become  the  sin  of  all.  "  Quum  a  communi  sensu  nihil 
magis  sit  remotum,  quam  ob  unius  culpam  fieri  omnes  reos, 
et  ita  peccatum  fieri  commune."  (Inst.  n.  1,  5.)  The 
language  of  Pascal,  the  devoted  and  profound  Pascal,  is  even 
stronger  than  this:  "  Undoubtedly ,"  he  says,  "nothing 
appears  so  revolting  to  our  reason  as  to  say  that  the  trans 
gression  of  the  first  man  imparted  guilt  to  those  who,  from 
their  extreme  distance  from  the  source  of  evil,  seem  inca 
pable  of  such  a  participation.  This  transmission  seems  to 
us  not  only  impossible,  but  unjust."  (Thoughts,  Part  II. 
ch.  5,  $  4.)  From  such  astounding  results  Pascal  found 
no  mode  of  escape  but  to  discredit  the  decisions  alike  of  our 
intellectual  and  moral  intuitions  as  unworthy  of  credit, 
because  opposed  to  what  he  deemed  a  revealed  fact. 

Such  is  a  compendious  view  of  the  responses  of  the 
human  mind  to  the  theory  of  Augustine,  in  view  of  every 
solution  that  has  yet  been  devised  for  explaining  how  a  new- 
created  being  can  come  into  existence  under  a  forfeiture  of 
its  original  and  inherent  rights  by  an  act  which  it  never 
performed,  and  which  took  place  ages  before  it  was  created. 
I  can  say  of  this  nothing  stronger  than  Pascal  has  said. 
NOTHING  appears  so  revolting  to  our  reason.  It  seems  to 
us  not  only  IMPOSSIBLE,  but  UNJUST.  And,  in  view  of  the 
action  on  the  human  mind  of  this  theory  for  ages,  is  there 
not  the  best  possible  reason  to  believe  that  it  is  in  fixed  and 
sober  reality  impossible  and  unjust?  Is  the  truth  wont  to 


RESPONSE    OF   THE    HUMAN   MIND.  305 

act  on  the  human  mind  as  this  theory  has  done  ?  Has  it 
not  been  tried  long  enough  to  disclose  its  true  merits,  if  it 
has  any  ?  Is  it  desirable  any  longer  to  attempt  to  base  the 
redemption  of  the  church,  and  God's  eternal  glory,  on  a 
theory  that  seems  to  the  purest,  holiest,  humblest  minds, 
impossible  and  unjust?  Is  it  safe  for  the  human  mind  any 
longer  to  pursue  such  a  course  ?  Is  there  no  danger  of  a 
reaction  into  universal  scepticism,  if  the  most  absolute  of  our 
intellectual  and  moral  intuitions  are  thus  contemned  and 
trodden  under  foot  as  worthless  and  invalid? 

I  desire,  however,  at  this  point  once  more  to  call  attention 
to  the  fact  that  this  reasoning  does  not  at  all  affect  the  great 
doctrine  that  men  enter  this  world  under  a  forfeiture,  and 
with  innate  depravity.  This,  which  is  the  real  element  of 
strength  in  the  system  of  Augustine,  and  which  has  given 
it  all  its  power,  is  neither  impossible  nor  absurd.  By  sup 
posing  such  a  real  and  intelligible  preexistence  as  I  have  set 
forth,  all  can  see  that  it  is  both  possible  and  just. 

My  argument  is  directed  simply  against  an  absurd  and 
impossible  theory  as  to  a  real  and  important  fact,  and  not 
against  the  fact  itself.  I  should  not  deem  it  necessary  to 
say  more,  did  I  not  know  what  is  the  mournful  effect  upon 
the  human  mind  of  being  trained  for  ages  to  disregard  the 
most  sacred  and  fundamental  intellectual  and  moral  intui 
tions,  under  the  plea  of  faith  and  mystery.  The  mind  seems 
to  be  paralyzed  and  stunned,  as  if  it  had  been  smitten  down 
by  a  blow,  and  cannot  again,  in  that  particular,  react  and 
rally,  and  recover  the  use  of  its  powers.  Such  an  effect  has 
been  extensively  produced  on  the  human  mind,  for  ages,  by 
this  result  of  the  discussion  under  Augustine ;  for,  when 
the  plea  of  any  great  moral  or  intellectual  intuitions  has 
been  once  heard,  and,  after  long,  earnest  and  full  debate, 
rejected,  and  the  course  of  thought  has  afterwards  rolled  on 
26* 


306  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

in  disregard  of  them  for  subsequent  centuries  under  the 
guidance  of  ecclesiastical  authority,  and  of  the  original 
arguments,  in  one  deep  channel,  it  becomes  almost  impossi 
ble  to  restore  the  human  mind  to  the  vantage-ground  on 
which  it  stood  when  the  original  conflict  began.  This  effect 
of  the  Augustinian  debates  and  decisions  was,  therefore, 
like  a  Waterloo  defeat  to  certain  fundamental  principles  of 
reason,  honor  and  right ;  a  defeat  by  which  the  whole  course 
of  events  has  been  changed  in  every  subsequent  age,  to  the 
present  day.  Then  the  great  battle  for  those  principles  was 
lost ;  and  never  since  then  have  they  been  able  to  rally  and 
reunite  their  scattered  forces,  and  once  more  to  bring  them 
up  to  the  encounter. 

I  do  not  mean  by  this  —  as  is  apparent  from  my  previous 
remarks  —  that  the  existence  and  the  just  authority  of  these 
principles  in  other  important  forms  was  denied.  I  have 
clearly  evinced  that  such  was  not  the  fact.  I  do  not  mean 
that  the  results  to  which  Pelagius,  Celestius  and  Julian 
came  were  true.  In  my  judgment,  they  were  not.  I  do 
not  mean  that  the  fundamental  facts  as  to  the  depravity  of 
man  for  which  Augustine  contended  were  not  true.  In 
my  judgment,  they  were.  What  I  mean  is,  that  these  true 
facts  were  then  for  the  first  time  fully  and  authoritatively 
established  upon  a  theory  of  forfeiture  which  was,  in  the 
words  of  Pascal,  both  impossible  and  unjust ;  and  that  ever 
since,  the  human  mind  has  been  degraded  and  crushed 
beneath  the  impossible  task  of  vindicating  and  defending 
that  theory,  and  has  even  been  urged  to  the  mournful  and 
lamentable  extreme  of  basing  the  redemption  of  God's  own 
church  and  the  whole  glory  of  his  kingdom  upon  that  false 
and  ruinous  foundation,  which  cannot  logically  hold  it  up 
for  one  moment  from  an  abyss  of  infamy  and  just  abhor 
rence.  The  human  mind  cannot  be  held  back  from  abhor 


RESPONSE    OF   THE    HUMAN    MIND.  307 

ring  such  a  theory,  except  by  the  most  unnatural  violence 
to  its  divinely-inspired  convictions  of  honor  and  of  right. 

It  will  be  observed  that,  in  the  preceding  general  view  of 
the  operation  of  the  theory  of  Augustine  on  the  mind,  I  have 
made  some  assertions  of  the  truth  of  which  I  have  not  as 
yet  given  any  formal  proof.  I  have  done  this  deliberately. 
I  desired  to  arrest  attention,  and  to  produce  a  call  for  proof. 
And,  since  I  suppose  that  call  now  to  be  made,  I  intend  to 
show  the  truth  of  the  facts  asserted  concerning  the  Princeton 
divines,  Prof.  Shedd,  Edwards,  the  Reformers,  Haldane  and 
others,  and  thus  to  prove  that  the  action  of  the  theory  of 
Augustine  on  the  human  mind  has  in  all  ages  been  such  that 
we  ought  to  regard  it  as  being  in  reality  what  it  appeared 
to  be  to  Pascal  —  impossible  and  unjust. 

By  the  theory  of  Augustine,  I  mean  the  theory  THAT 

MEN  ENTER  THIS  WORLD  UNDER  A  FORFEITURE  OF  THEIR 
RIGHTS,  WITHOUT  HAVING  ACTUALLY  PREEXISTED  AND 
SINNED,  EACH  IN  HIS  OWN  SEPARATE  PERSON.  This  IS 

the  general  and  comprehensive  theory.  Under  it  are  com 
prehended  all  the  modes  in  which  different  men  have 
attempted  to  solve  a  problem  that  is  inherently  impossible 
and  absurd. 


CHAPTER   VIII. 

DIFFERENT     MODES     OF     SOLUTION. 

LET  us,  then,  consider,  in  order,  the  various  solutions  of 
the  problem  how  men  can  enter  this  world  under  a  forfeiture 
of  all  their  rights,  if  they  have  not  preexisted  and  sinned, 
each  in  his  own  proper  person.  We  come,  then,  first,  to 
the  solution  of  Augustine,  that  all  men  did  exist  in  Adam, 
so  that  they  sinned  in  him  in  reality,  though  not  in  their 
own  separate  persons.  Augustine,  in  his  Retractions, 
expresses  it  thus :  "Infants  belong  to  the  human  nature, 
and  are  guilty  of  original  sin,  because  human  nature  sinned 
in  our  first  parents."  In  proof  of  this,  he  refers  to  the  vul- 
gate  translation  of  Rom.  5:  12, — "In  quo  omnes  peccave- 
runt," — "in  whom  all  sinned."  Augustine,  therefore,  held 
to  a  mysterious  unity  of  all  men  in  Adam,  such  that  in 
reality  they  all,  as  included  in  him  in  a  common  nature, 
sinned  together  with  him,  and  thus  incurred  the  forfeiture 
under  which  they  are  born. 

Now,  that  this  solution  acts  on  the  human  mind  as  if  it 
were  false  and  absurd,  is  obvious  from  the  fact  that  the 
Princeton  divines,  the  leaders  of  orthodoxy  among  the  old 
Calvinists,  have  formally  rejected  it  as  such,  and  introduced 
another  solution  in  its  place.  Moreover,  they  defend  this 
new  theory  as  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Reformers.  In  this 
solution,  it  is  still  true  that  men  are  spoken  of  as  sinning  in 


DIFFERENT  MODES   OF  SOLUTION.  809 

Adam  and  falling  with  him.  But,  as  Prof.  Hodge  dis 
tinctly  informs  us,  this  "does  not  include  the  idea  of  a 
mysterious  identity  of  Adam  and  his  race,  nor  that  of  a 
transfer  of  the  moral  turpitude  of  his  sin  to  his  descendants. 
It  does  not  teach  that  his  offence  was  personally  or  properly 
the  sin  of  all  men,  or  that  his  act  was  in  any  mysterious 
sense  the  act  of  his  posterity." 

So,  also,  we  are  told  in  the  Princeton  Review:  "We 
deny  that  this  doctrine  (imputation)  involves  any  mysterious 
union  with  Adam,  any  confusion  of  our  identity  with  his,  so 
that  his  act  was  personally  and  properly  our  act ;  and,  sec 
ondly,  that  the  moral  turpitude  of  that  sin  was  transferred 
from  him  to  us, —  we  deny  the  possibility  of  any  such 
transfer."  (Princeton  Essays,  I.  136.)  Indeed,  after  all 
the  labors  of  Augustine  to  defend  his  solution,  they  call  in 
question  even  the  fact  that  he  and  his  followers  ever  held  to 
any  such  a  unity  of  Adam  and  his  race  as  we  have  stated, 
a  union  such  as  made  his  sin  theirs,  truly  and  properly. 
They  think  it  incredible  that  Augustine  ever  taught  such 
an  absurdity.  They  admit,  however,  that  Doderlein, 
Knapp,  and  Bretsclmeider,  all  assert  it ;  and  they  might 
have  added  Neander  and  Wiggers,  and,  indeed,  all  others, 
so  far  as  I  know,  who  have  ever  thoroughly  investigated  the 
point. 

But  we  need  not  refer  to  authority  on  such  a  point.  The 
unequivocal  testimony  of  Augustine  himself  puts  it  beyond 
all  question.  It  appears  that  Jerome  had  taken  and  begun  to 
advocate  the  position  that  the  souls  of  all  men  are  from  time 
to  time  newly  created  by  God,  as  fast  as  they  are  needed  to  ani 
mate  their  bodies.  Now,  this  is,  at  this  time,  the  general  faith 
of  the  church,  and  yet  is  not  looked  upon  by  the  Princeton 
divines  as  inconsistent  with  their  view  of  the  guilt  of  man  for 
Adam's  sin.  Had  Augustine  held  such  views  as  the  Prince- 


310  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

ton  divines  now  set  forth,  it  would  have  caused  him  no 
trouble,  just  as  it  causes  them  no  trouble.  Far  otherwise 
was  the  fact.  Augustine  regarded  it  as  breaking  up  that 
unity  of  Adam  and  his  race  on  which  his  theory  of  forfeiture 
rested.  On  this  assumption,  all  men  were  not  in  Adam  when 
he  sinned.  But,  if  so,  he  could  not  conceive  how  the  guilt 
of  Adam's  sin  could  rest  on  them,  since  they  could  have  had 
nothing  to  do  with  it.  How,  then,  he  asks,  can  they  be 
justly  condemned  for  it?  Does  not  this  imply  that  he  held 
to  a  real  though  mysterious  unity  of  Adam  and  all  his  pos 
terity  in  his  sin  ?  But  Augustine  shall  speak  for  himself. 
Hearing  of  the  views  of  Jerome,  and  fearing  to  arouse  him 
to  controversy  by  open  opposition,  in  a  letter  to  him  he  puts 
himself  in  the  position  of  a  learner,  and  seeks  to  arrest  the 
course  of  his  excitable  and  imperious  friend  by  gentle  means. 
Jerome  did  not  see  fit,  for  reasons  best  known  to  himself,  to 
answer  the  inquiries  of  Augustine.  Hereupon  Augustine 
laid  by  his  letter  till  after  the  death  of  Jerome,  and  then 
made  it  public.  A  very  instructive  letter  it  is.  It  clearly 
shows  that  even  Augustine  could  not  find  undisturbed 
repose  in  his  own  views.  But  let  us  listen  to  him,  as  he 
thus  addresses  Jerome : 

"  Teach  me,  therefore,  I  entreat  you,  what  I  shall  teach, 
teach  what  I  shall  hold,  and  tell  me,  if  souls  are  created  one 
by  one  for  those  who  are  born,  when  do  they  sin  in  the 
little  ones  so  that  they  need  remission  of  sins  in  baptism,  as 
sinning  in  Adam,  from  whom  the  sinful  body  is  propagated? 
Or,  if  they  do  not  sin,  by  what  justice  of  the  Creator  are 
they  so  held  responsible  for  the  sin  of  another,  when  they 
are  introduced  into  bodies  propagated  from  him,  that  they 
are  condemned,  if  the  church  does  not  relieve  them  by  bap 
tism,  although  they  have  no  power  to  decide  whether  they 
shall  be  baptized  or  not?  How  can  so  many  thousands  of 


DIFFERENT   MODES   OF   SOLUTION.  811 

souls,  which  leave  the  bodies  of  unbaptized  infants,  be  with 
any  equity  condemned,  if  they  were  newly  created,  and 
introduced  into  these  bodies  for  no  previous  sin  of  their  own, 
but  by  the  mere  will  of  Him  who  created  them  to  animate 
these  bodies,  and  foreknew  that  each  of  them,  for  no  fault  of 
his  own,  would  die  unbaptized  ?  Since,  then,  we  cannot  say 
that  God  either  makes  souls  sinful  by  compulsion,  or  pun 
ishes  them  when  innocent,  and  yet  are  obliged  to  confess 
that  the  souls  of  the  little  ones  are  condemned  if  they  die 
unbaptized,  I  beseech  you,  tell  me  how  can  this  opinion 
be  defended,  by  which  it  is  believed  that  souls  are  not  all 
derived  from  that  one  first  man,  but  are  newly  created  for 
each  particular  body,  as  his  was  for  his  body?  "  (Ep.  ad 
Hier.) 

Here  he  does  not,  indeed,  openly  avow  the  generation  of 
souls ;  nay,  he  elsewhere  says  that  he  would  be  glad,  if  he 
could,  to  believe  in  their  creation.  But  he  saw  no  way  of 
removing  the  objection  stated  by  him.  Nor  is  there  any. 
And,  in  fact,  there  is  little  reason  to  doubt  that  he  really 
believed  in  the  generation  of  souls.  Does  not  the  fact  that  he 
started  such  a  difficulty,  and  could  not  solve  it,  prove,  to  a 
demonstration,  that  he  held  to  a  real  unity  of  all  men  in  Adam 
as  the  ground  of  their  sinning  in  him  and  falling  with  him  ? 
But  this  is  but  a  small  part  of  the  evidence  that  exists  to 
prove  this  point.  We  do  not  believe  that  any  one,  after  a 
careful  examination  of  Augustine,  will  call  it  in  question. 
Nevertheless,  now,  the  Princeton  divines  earnestly  renounce 
this  theory  as  absurd,  and  substitute  another  in  its  place. 
But  this  only  the  more  clearly  shows  that  the  ground  on 
which  Augustine  fought  his  great  battle,  and  which  is 
repudiated  by  them,  is  really  untenable  and  defenceless. 

In  place  of  this,  however,  they  still  defend,  in  another 
form,  as  we  have  seen,  the  idea  of  a  forfeiture  in  Adam  of 


812  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

all  the  rights  of  new- created  beings.  To  effect  this,  they 
introduce  the  idea  of  federal  headship  and  representation, 
and  teach  that,  though  we  did  not  exist,  and,  of  course,  did 
not  act,  when  Adam  sinned,  yet  that,  in  virtue  of  the 
divinely-established  representative  headship  of  Adam,  God 
regarded  his  act  as  our  act,  and  withdrew  from  each  indi 
vidual  of  the  race  those  divine  influences  which  are  essential 
to  his  proper  moral  development ;  in  consequence  of  which, 
his  nature  inevitably  becomes  corrupt,  and  develops  nothing 
but  actual  sin. 

The  validity  of  this  solution  I  need  not  now  consider,  as 
it  has  already  been  fully  discussed ;  and  to  that  discussion  I 
refer. 

But,  although  the  Princeton  divines  set  forth  such  views 
as  those  of  the  Reformers,  there  is  clear  evidence  that,  to 
say  the  least,  many  of  them  held  to  still  another  and  oppo 
site  solution  of  the  great  problem  of  forfeiture.  They  held 
that,  by  imputation,  the  sin  and  guilt  of  Adam  were  made 
to  be  the  real  sin  and  guilt  of  all  his  posterity ;  not, 
indeed,  their  personal  sin  and  guilt,  but  still  their  real  sin 
and  guilt.  If  this  implies  that  which  the  Princeton 
divines  declare  to  be  absurd  and  impossible, —  that  is,  a  real 
transfer  of  sin  and  moral  turpitude  from  Adam  to  all  his 
posterity, —  it  is,  nevertheless,  a  doctrine  of  some  of  the 
Reformers,  and  of  some  of  the  schoolmen  before  them. 
Indeed,  it  is  but  a  natural  result  of  the  decision  of  the 
church  and  of  most  of  the  schoolmen  in  favor  of  Jerome's 
view,  that  the  souls  of  all  men  are  created  by  God,  and 
not  derived  from  their  parents,  and  thus  from  Adam.  In 
this  they  forsook  Augustine,  who  plainly  held  that  the  sin 
of  Adam  was  really  the  sin  of  all  his  posterity,  because  all 
his  posterity  were  really  in  him  when  he  sinned.  But  they 
were  still  desirous  of  agreeing  with  Augustine  in  the  fact 


DIFFERENT   MODES   OF   SOLUTION.  313 

that  Adam's  sin  was  the  real  sin  of  the  race.  Therefore, 
having  given  up  Augustine's  basis  of  the  doctrine, —  that  is, 
the  derivation  of  souls  from  Adam, — they  would  be  naturally 
led  to  seek  out  a  neAY  basis.  This  they  found  in  a  system 
of  federal  headship  and  representation,  in  which,  by  God's 
constitution,  ordinance  or  decree,  the  sin  of  Adam  should 
still  be  made  the  real  sin  of  his  posterity.  Hence  Whitby 
concedes  to  Bishop  Davenant  that,  so  far  as  the  authority 
of  certain  of  the  scholastic  divines  is  concerned,  they  do 
teach  "  that,  by  the  decree  of  God,  Adam  sustained  the 
person  of  all  mankind ;  and  that,  by  the  same  decree  (or 
ordinance),  his  posterity  are  guilty  of  his  first  sin,  but  not 
of  his  other  sins," — but  he  attaches  no  weight  to  their 
authority.  This  view  of  the  origin  of  the  theory  of  the 
federal  headship  of  Adam  is  confirmed  by  Knapp,  who 
says  that  "  this  theory  was  invented  by  some  schoolmen, 
and  has  been  adopted  by  many  in  the  Romish  and  Protest 
ant  churches  since  the  sixteenth  century." 

That  by  Owen,  Turretin,  the  Westminster  divines  and 
others,  the  sin  of  Adam  was  regarded  as  being  really  the 
sin  of  his  posterity,  though  not  personally,  is  proved  at 
great  length  and  beyond  dispute  in  an  article  in  the  Chris 
tian  Spectator  for  September,  1831,  in  answer  to  the 
Princeton  Review, —  an  article  to  which  no  reply  was  ever 
made,  and  to  which  I  refer  for  a  more  full  view  of  this 
aspect  of  the  case.  It  appears,  then,  that  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  federal  headship  of  Adam  there  are  two  forms  : 
the  more  ancient  one,  that  of  those  who  hold  that  Adam's 
sin  by  imputation  becomes  ours  truly,  so  that,  though  it  is 
not  our  personal  sin,  it  is  yet  our  real  sin,  for  which  we 
are  truly  guilty ;  the  other  and  more  modern  one,  that  of 
those  who,  with  the  Princeton  divines,  assert  that  God 
merely  regards  and  treats  it  as  our  sin,  though  in  fact  it 
27 


314  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

is  not,  and  we  are  entirely  innocent  in  our  own  persons, 
and  free  from  all  the  moral  turpitude  of  the  sin. 

It  hence  appears  that,  in  making  out  the  result  aimed  at, 
—  that  is,  a  forfeiture  in  Adam  by  the  race  of  all  the  original 
rights  of  new-created  minds, —  very  different  courses  have 
been  taken.  First,  a  forfeiture  by  a  real  existence  and 
action  of  the  race  in  Adam ;  then  a  forfeiture  by  the  repre 
sentative  action  of  Adam,  which  by  imputation  becomes 
really  their  sin ;  then  a  forfeiture  by  the  same  representa 
tive  action,  regarded  and  treated  as  their  sin,  though  in  fact 
it  is  not. 

The  view  of  Prof.  Shedd  differs  from  either  of  these. 
He  holds,  with  Coleridge,  that  there  is  no  sin,  or  sinful 
nature,  that  is  anterior  to  a  free,  self-determined  act  of  the 
will.  The  sinful  nature  that  he  asserts  to  exist  in  man  is 
merely  such  an  act  of  the  will ;  not,  indeed,  a  mere  specific 
volition,  but  that  main  and  controlling  determination  that 
carries  with  it  all  the  powers  and  energies  of  a  man,  and 
devotes  them  to  some  object  as  the  ultimate  end  of  living. 
He  speaks  of  the  sinful  nature  of  man  as  "  that  central 
self-determination,  that  great  main  tendency  of  the  will  to 
self  and  sin  as  an  ultimate  end."  This,  of  course,  must  be 
a  personal  act,  of  which  every  man  is  the  author.  This 
self-determination  of  the  will  to  sense  and  sin  he  regards  as 
the  fall  of  every  man's  will.  Of  it  he  says  "  that  the  fall 
of  the  will  unquestionably  occurs  back  of  consciousness, 
and  in  a  region  beyond  the  reach  of  it.  Certainly,  no  one 
of  the  posterity  of  Adam  was  ever  conscious  of  that  act 
whereby  his  will  fell  from  God."  Further,  he  holds  that 
this  region  beyond  the  reach  of  consciousness  was  in  Adam. 
"All  men  were,  in  some  sense,  coagent  in  Adam;  other 
wise  they  could  not  have  fallen  with  him."  This  view  is 
not  the  view  of  Augustine,  for  he  held  that  the  common 


DIFFERENT   MODES    OF   SOLUTION.  315 

nature  of  all  men  sinned,  and  not  that  all  men  sinned 
together,  each  as  an  individual,  and  by  a  self-determining 
act  of  his  own  will.  Prof.  Shedd  concedes  that  such 
unconscious  action  in  Adam  is  a  mystery.  He  also  ascribes 
his  theory  to  the  Westminster  divines.  In  this  he  is 
directly  at  war  with  the  Princeton  divines  ;  for  they  assert 
that  there  was  no  such  mysterious  action  of  all  men  in 
Adam,  and  that  the  Reformers  and  Westminster  divines  did 
not  believe  that  there  was. 

The  theory  of  Edwards  is  different  from  all  these.  I 
shall  more  fully  state  it  hereafter.  It  is  enough  now  to 
say  that  he  held  that  God  established  a  personal  identity 
between  Adam  and  all  his  posterity  with  respect  to  Adam's 
first  sin,  but  not  with  respect  to  any  other.  Thus,  the  first 
sin  of  Adam  is  truly  and  properly  the  sin  of  every  man, 
since  with  reference  to  that  sin  each  is  the  same  person  with 
Adam.  I  need  not  undertake  to  prove  that  this  view  differs 
from  and  opposes  all  the  rest.  The  thing  speaks  for  itself. 
Still,  the  language  used  by  those  who  hold  either  of  these 
theories  is  in  so  many  particulars  the  same  with  that  of 
those  who  hold  the  others,  that  it  is  sometimes  hard  to  tell 
on  which  of  these  various  grounds  any  writer  stands, 
unless  he  fully  defines  and  carries  out  his  system. 

All  of  these  solutions  seem  to  have  been  given  by  different 
individuals  since  the  Reformation.  Sometimes  writers  use 
the  language  which  belongs  to  two  of  them,  or  even  to  all 
of  them,  in  a  confused  manner.  This  is  not  wonderful,  for 
the  mind  of  man  has  been  so  made  by  God  that  it  cannot 
see  any  rational  way  in  which  the  result  which  they  aim  at 
in  common  can  be  gained, —  that  is,  the  alleged  forfeiture 
of  the  original  rights  of  the  whole  human  race  by  the  act 
of  one  man.  Therefore,  any  solution  designed  to  explain 


816  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

such  a  result  naturally  tends  to  confuse  the  human  mind, 
and  to  destroy  its  powers  of  discrimination.  ^ 

The  more  modern  solutions,  I  think,  have  no  advantage 
over  that  of  Augustine.  On  the  other  hand,  so  far  as  he 
approximated  to  the  idea  of  preexistence,  there  was  at  least 
an  appearance  of  depth  and  reality  in  his  theory,  which  is 
entirely  wanting  in  the  more  modern  views. 

Haldane,  however, —  a  most  eminent  and  devoted  Chris 
tian,  and  honored  by  God  as  the  instrument  of  a  great 
revival  of  religion  on  the  European  continent, —  at  last  takes 
the  ground  that  the  sin  of  Adam  is  as  truly  ours  as  it  was 
Adam's.  He  also  holds  that  it  is  not  made  ours  by  imputa 
tion,  but  is  imputed  to  us  because  it  is  ours.  Still,  he 
refuses  to  enter  into  any  explanation.  Prof.  Stuart  had 
argued  against  imputation.,  as  implying  that  God  regards  a 
sin  as  the  sin  of  all  men  which  is  not  theirs  really  and  in 
fact.  In  reply  to  this,  he  says  that  "Adam's  sin  is 
imputed  to  his  posterity  because  it  is  their  sin  in  reality, 
though  we  may  not  be  able  to  see  the  way  in  which  it  is  so. 
Indeed,  we  should  not  pretend  to  explain  this,  because  it  is 
to  be  believed  on  the  foundation  of  divine  testimony,  and 
not  on  human  speculation,  or  on  our  ability  to  account  for 
it."  "In  opposition  to  all  such  infidel  reasonings,  it  is 
becoming  in  the  believer  to  say,  I  fully  acknowledge,  and 
I  humbly  confess,  on  the  testimony  of  my  God,  that  I  am 
guilty  of  Adam's  sin."  "  The  difficulty  that  some  persons 
feel  on  this  subject  arises  from  the  supposition  that,  though 
the  sin  of  the  first  man  is  charged  on  his  posterity,  yet  it 
is  not  theirs.  But  the  Scriptures  hold  it  forth  as  ours  in  as 
true  a  sense  as  it  was  Adamts"  "  Can  God  impute  to 
any  man  anything  that  is  not  true  ?  If  Adam's  sin  is  not 
ours  as  truly  as  it  was  Adam's  sin,  could  God  impute  it  to 
us  ?  Does  God  deal  with  men  as  sinners  while  they  are  not 


DIFFERENT   MODES    OF   SOLUTION.  317 

truly  such  'I ' '  He  also  maintains  that  this  view  is  not  con 
trary  to  reason,  though  mysterious.  "A  thing  may  be 
very  disagreeable  and  far  beyond  the  ken  of  human  pen 
etration,  which  is  not  contrary  to  reason.  We  are  not 
entitled  to  pronounce  anything  contrary  to  reason  which 
does  not  imply  a  contradiction.  A  contradiction  cannot  be 
true ;  but  all  other  things  may  be  true,  and,  on  sufficient 
evidence,  ought  to  be  received  as  true."  According  to 
this,  it  may  be  true  that  God  has  lied,  or  been  malevolent ; 
for  neither  implies  a  contradiction.  But,  if  it  be  said  in 
reply,  that  to  do  so  is  contrary  to  his  holy  and  righteous 
nature,  and  morally  impossible,  I  reply  the  same  is  true 
as  to  any  act  contrary  to  those  moral  principles  which  God 
has  made  the  human  mind  intuitively  to  perceive  as  true. 
Therefore,  whatever  opposes  these  is  contrary  to  reason, 
even  though  not  a  contradiction. 

Of  God's  alleged  dealings  in  this  case,  he  says  that  they 
are  "  not  such  as  to  be  vindicated  or  illustrated  by  human 
transactions.  The  union  of  Adam  and  his  posterity  is  a 
divine  constitution.  The  grounds  of  this  constitution  are 
not  to  be  found  in  any  of  the  justifiable  transactions  of 
men  ;  and  all  attempts  to  make  us  submit  by  convincing  us 
of  its  propriety,  from  what  we  are  able  to  understand  upon 
a  comparison  with  the  affairs  of  men,  are  only  calculated 
to  impose  on  credulity,  and  produce  unbelief.  We  receive 
it  because  God  says  it,  not  because  we  see  it  to  be  just." 
"  Those  who  have  endeavored  to  vindicate  divine  justice  in 
accounting  Adam's  sin  to  be  ours,  and  to  reconcile  the 
mind  of  man  to  that  procedure,  have  not  only  labored  in 
vain,  but  actually  injured  the  cause  they  meant  to  uphold." 

Haldane,  as  usual,  regards  his  views  of  this  matter  as 
those  of  the  Westminster  divines  and  the  Reformers.  It  is 
plain,  however,  that  he  is  directly  at  war  on  this  point  with 
27* 


318  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

the  Princeton  divines,  who  teach  that  the  sin  and  the  moral 
turpitude  of  Adam  are  not,  and  cannot  be,  actually  arid 
in  reality  those  of  his  posterity,  but  are  only  regarded 
as  such,  and  that  this  is  the  uniform  doctrine  of  the 
Reformers. 

I  am  not  sure  that  I  have  gathered  up  all  the  modes  of 
solving  the  great  Augustinian  problem  stated  at  the  outset 
of  this  discussion, —  that  is,  to  show  how  men  can  forfeit 
their  original  rights  before  they  are  born  into  this  world,  as 
long  as  a  real  personal  preexistence  and  real  sin  are  denied. 
What  I  have  produced,  however,  is  enough  to  furnish  evi 
dence  that  the  problem  does,  in  fact,  as  Pascal  says  it  seems 
to  do,  involve  both  an  impossibility  and  injustice.  Certainly, 
the  human  mind  never  acted  under  a  system  of  truth  as  it 
has  acted  under  the  system  which  demands  the  solution  of 
such  a  problem.  The  mind  of  Augustine  never  was  at  rest 
under  it.  His  successors  have  never  been  at  rest,  but  have 
fluctuated  from  view  to  view ;  and  yet  no  view  has  ever  been 
proposed  which  has  not  been  condemned  by  as  sound  ortho 
dox  and  godly  divines  as  have  ever  existed.  Such,  I  do 
not  doubt,  are  the  Princeton  divines ;  and  yet,  even  they  are 
logically  involved  in  Haldane's  charge  of  "  infidel  specula 
tions"  for  they  deny  that  the  sin  and  guilt  of  Adam  are,  or 
can  be,  as  truly  and  properly  ours  as  they  are  Adam's. 

After  reading  and  carefully  considering  multitudes  of 
statements,  from  Augustine  down  to  this  day,  I  cannot  find 
any  time  or  place  in  which  all  orthodox  divines  —  as  alleged 
by  Prof.  Shedd  —  all  stood  on  one  side,  and  that  Augus 
tine's  side,  except  in  two  particulars, —  that  is,  that  all  men 
are  born  into  this  world  under  a  forfeiture  of  their  original 
rights,  and  with  inherent  depravity.  But,  denying,  as  they 
have  done,  a  real  personal  preexistence  and  sinfulness  of  all 
men  before  birth,  they  have  done  nothing  after  this  but 


DIFFERENT    MODES    OF   SOLUTION.  319 

multiply  unsatisfactory  solutions  of  an  absurd  and  impos 
sible  problem. 

Before  I  close  this  chapter,  since  so  much  advantage  is 
taken  of  the  prestige  of  the  name  of  Augustine,  I  will  give 
a  statement  of  his  theory  of  our  sinning  in  Adam,  by 
a  celebrated  advocate  of  his  doctrine.  I  have  stated  it 
as  his  theory,  not  that  we  sinned  in  him  as  coexistent 
and  coagent  individuals,  with  each  a  self- determining  will, 
according  to  the  theory  of  Prof.  Shedd,  but,  that  in 
him  human  nature  sinned  as  a  great  totality,  which  was 
afterwards  distributed  into  the  individuals  of  the  race.  This 
is  clearly  the  view  set  forth  by  Odo  or  Udardus  of  Tournay, 
afterwards  Archbishop  of  Cambray.  Being  by  nature  prone 
to  philosophical  speculation,  he  became  eminent  as  a  teacher, 
but  was  devoid  of  piety.  He  was  at  length  recalled  from 
a  worldly  spirit  by  the  power  of  a  deep  conviction  of  sin. 
wrought  in  him  by  the  writings  of  Augustine,  and  ever 
after  sincerely  devoted  himself  to  the  service  of  God.  For 
the  sake  of  a  specimen  of  the  thinking  and  style  of  an 
eminent  divine  of  .the  middle  age,  I  will  give  his  views ; 
first  in  his  own  words,  and  then  in  a  translation.  The  title 
of  his  work  is  as  follows  : 

"  Odonis  ex  Abbate  primo  Tornacensi  Episcopi  Camera- 
censis  Ecclesise  de  Peccato  Originali  libri  tres."  (Bib. 
Vet.  Pat.,  vol.  xxi.  p.  230.) 

He  thus  propounds  and  answers  the  question  to  be  con 
sidered  : 

"  Quid  distat  naturale  peccatum  et  personale  ? 

"  Dicitur  enim  duobus  modis  peccatum  personale  et  nat 
urale.  Et  naturale  est  cum  quo  nascimur,  et  quod  ab 
Adam  trahimus,  in  quo  omnes  peccavimus.  In  ipso  enim 
erat  ariima  mea,  specie  non  persona,  non  individua  sed  com- 
muni  natura,.  Nam  omnis  humanae  animoe  natura  commu- 


320  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

nis  erat  in  Adam  obnoxia  peccato.  Et  ideo  omnis  humana 
anima  culpabilis  est  secundum  suam  naturam,  etsi  non 
secundum  suam  personam.  Ita  peccatum  quo  peccavimus 
in  Adam,  mihi  quidam  naturale  est,  in  Adam  vero  per- 
sonale.  In  Adam  gravius,  levius  in  me ;  nam  peccavi  in  eo 
non  qui  sum  sed  quod  sum.  Peccavi  in  eo  non  ego,  sed 
hoc,  quod  sum  ego.  Peccavi  homo,  sed  non  Odo.  Peccavi 
substantia  non  persona,  et  quia  substantia  non  est  nisi  in 
persona,  peccatum  substantiae  est  etiam  personae,  sed  non 
personale.  Peccatum  vero  personale  est,  quod  facio  ego 
qui  sum,  non  hoc  quod  sum  ;  quo  pecco  Odo,  non  homo ;  quo 
pecco  persona,  non  natura ;  sed  quia  persona  non  est  sine 
natura,  peccatum  personae  est  etiam  naturae,  sed  non  natu 
rale."— p.  233. 

Of  this  peculiar  passage  I  subjoin  a  translation : 
" How  does  the  sin  of  nature  differ  from  personal  sin? 
"  Two  kinds  of  sin  are  spoken  of,  that  of  nature  and  per 
sonal  sin.  The  sin  of  nature  is  that  with  which  we  are  born, 
and  which  we  derive  from  Adam,  in  whom  we  all  sinned. 
For  my  mind  was  in  him  as  a  part  of  the  whole  species, 
but  not  as  a  person ;  not  in  my  individual  nature,  but  in  the 
common  nature.  For  the  common  nature  of  all  human 
minds  in  Adam  was  involved  in  sin.  And  thus  every 
human  mind  is  blamable  with  respect  to  its  nature, 
although  not  with  respect  to  its  person.  Thus  the  sin  by 
which  we  sinned  in  Adam  is  to  me  a  sin  of  nature. —  in 
Adam  a  personal  sin.  In  Adam  it  was  more  criminal,  in 
me  less  so  ;  for  I,  who  am,  did  not  sin  in  him,  but  that 
which  I  am.  I  did  not  sin  in  him,  but  this  essence  which 
I  am.  I  sinned  as  the  genus  man,  not  as  the  individual  Odo. 
I  sinned  as  a  substance,  not  as  a  person  ;  and  because  my 
substance  does  not  exist  but  in  a  person,  the  sin  of  my  sub 
stance  is  the  sin  of  one  who  is  a  person,  but  not  a  personal 


DIFFERENT   MODES   OF   SOLUTION.  321 

sin.  For  a  personal  sin  is  one  which  I,  who  am,  commit, 
but  this  substance  which  I  am  does  not  commit ;  a  sin  in 
which  I  sin  as  Odo,  and  not  as  the  genus  man ;  in  which  I 
sin  as  a  person,  and  not  as  a  nature  ;  but,  because  there  is 
no  person  without  a  nature,  the  sin  of  a  person  is  also  the 
sin  of  a  nature,  but  not  a  natural  sin." 

If  all  this  is  not,  by  this  time,  perfectly  clear,  even  to 
the  lowest  capacity,  certainly  it  is  not  for  the  want  of  suf 
ficient  pains  on  the  part  of  the  distinguished  archbishop. 
The  difficulty  must  rather  lie  in  making  that  intelligible  to 
the  human  mind  which  is,  in  the  nature  of  things,  absurd 
and  impossible.  Yet  this  elaborate  view  of  the  archbishop 
is  merely  an  expansion  of  the  definite  statements  of  Augus 
tine,  upon  whose  ground  so  many  eminent  men  among  us 
are  emulously  declaring  themselves  determined  to  stand. 

In  addition  to  the  passage  from  the  Retractions  of  Augus 
tine  already  quoted,  in  which  he  asserts  that  it  was  human 
nature  which  sinned  in  our  first  parents,  the  following 
statements,  as  quoted  by  Wiggers,  are  very  express  :  "In 
that  one  all  have  sinned,  as  all  died  in  him.  For  those 
who  were  to  be  many  in  themselves  out  of  him,  were  then 
one  in  him.  That  sin,  therefore,  would  be  his  only,  if  no 
one  had  proceeded  from  him.  But  now  no  one  is  free 
from  his  fault  in  whom  was  the  common  nature"  (Ep. 
186,  c.  6.)  "In  Adam  all  have  sinned,  as  all  were  that 
one  man."  (De  Pec.,  Mer.  I.  10.)  "  Those  are  not 
condemned  who  have  not  sinned,  since  that  sin  has  passed 
from  one  to  all,  in  which  we  all  have  sinned  in  common 
previously  to  the  personal  sins  of  each  one  as  an  indi 
vidual."  (Ep.  194,  c.  6.) 

The  statement  of  Odo,  then,  is  clearly  but  an  expansion 
of  the  doctrine  of  Augustine.  Moreover,  his  idea  that  the 
sin  of  nature  is  in  each  individual  less  criminal  than  his 


322  CONFLICT    OF    AGES. 

personal  sin  is  a  truly  Augustinian  idea ;  for,  though 
Augustine  held  that  even  those  who  died  before  committing 
any  other  sin  than  that  of  nature  would  be  punished,  still 
he  held  that  they  would  be  punished  more  mildly  than  any 
others.  This  is  owing,  at  least  in  part,  to  the  fact  that  the 
immense  guilt  of  the  great  common  sin  of  nature  is  not 
charged  to  each  individual,  but  only  his  due  proportion  of 
it.  For  Augustine  is  careful  to  inform  us  that  "  there 
comes  not  on  individuals  what  the  whole  apostate  creature 
has  deserved ;  and  no  individual  endures  so  much  as  the 
whole  mass  deserves  to  suifer,  but  God  has  arranged  all, 
in  measure,  weight  and  number,  and  suffers  no  one  to 
endure  any  evil  which  he  does  not  deserve."  (Op.  Imp.  n. 
87.)  In  still  another  form  he  expresses  the  same  idea  of  a 
common  sin  of  that  all-embracing  nature  of  man  which  was 
in  Adam,  and  was  afterward  divided  up  and  distributed  into 
individuals,  each  bearing  his  share  of  the  common  guilt. 
"  We  were  all  in  that  one,  since  we  were  all  that  one  who 
fell  into  sin  by  the  woman  who  was  made  from  him  before 
sin.  Not  as  yet  was  the  form  created  and  distributed  to  us 
singly  in  which  we  were  individually  to  live ;  but  there 
was  that  seminal  nature  from  which  we  were  to  be  propa 
gated.  This,  by  reason  of  sin  having  been  corrupted,  and 
bound  by  the  bond  of  death,  and  brought  under  just  con 
demnation,  no  man  could  be  born  of  man  in  a  different 
condition.1'  (De  Civ.  Dei,  xin.  14.) 

Neander,  regarding  Anselm  as  coinciding  with  Odo  in  his 
exposition  of  the  doctrine  of  Augustine,  represents  him  as 
holding  "that  as  entire  human  nature  was  only  expressed 
and  contained,  as  yet.  in  this  first  exemplar  (Adam),  entire 
humanity,  therefore,  became  corrupt  in  him,  and  the  cor 
ruption  passed  from  him  to  his  posterity."  Accordingly, 
Anselm  saya.  "  The  whole  of  human  nature  was  so  in  Adam 


DIFFERENT   MODES   OF   SOLUTION.  323 

that  no  part  of  it  was  without  him."  Neander  adds,  "He 
therefore  distinguishes  peccatum  naturale  from  peccatum 
personate.  *  *  This  connection  of  ideas  is  exhibited  with 
remarkable  distinctness  in  the  work  of  Odo  of  Tournay." 

It  is  not  uncommon  at  this  day  for  writers,  otherwise  of 
great  ability,  to  overlook  the  fact  which  I  have  stated  and 
now  prominently  repeat,  that  men  may  agree  with  Augus 
tine  in  the  general  idea  of  a  forfeiture  and  of  inherent 
depravity  before  action  in  this  world,  who  yet  radically 
differ  from  him,  and  directly  oppose  him,  in  his  solution 
of  the  mode  of  forfeiture.  Nevertheless,  I  cannot  but 
think  that  if  any  man  desires  to  be  in  reality  a  profound 
thinker,  he  ought  to  discriminate  the  things  that  differ,  and 
not  collect  together  a  mass  of  warring  solutions  of  an  im 
possible  problem,  and  call  the  self-repellent  compound  the 
Augustinian  theology ;  or  to  attempt  to  represent  men  as 
standing  together  on  one  side,  who,  though  in  general  on 
one  side,  are  yet,  while  there,  engaged  in  mortal  conflict 
with  each  other. 

I  have  stated  at  least  six  dissimilar  and  conflicting  solu 
tions  of  the  alleged  forfeiture  of  rights  by  the  human  race 
in  Adam.  If  any  man  holds  either  of  the  five  that  are 
opposed  to  Augustine's,  whether  his  view  is  true  or  false,  he 
is  certainly  not  on  the  ground  of  Augustine.  Finally,  all 
of  these  solutions  cannot  be  true ;  but  all  of  them  can  be, 
and,  in  my  judgment,  are  false,  as  designed  to  explain  and 
justify  what  is  impossible  and  unjust. 


CHAPTER    IX. 

DISQUIET    OF    THE     HUMAN    MIND. 

I  HAVE  given  a  general  view  of  the  import  of  the 
response  of  the  human  mind  to  Augustine's  solution  of  the 
mode  of  forfeiture.  It  has  proved  so  unsatisfactory  that 
the  leaders  of  Old  School  orthodoxy  in  this  country  have 
not  only  repudiated  it,  but  even  denied  that  Augustine  ever 
held  it. 

I  have  also  taken  a  general  view  of  the  principles  of  the 
other  solutions  which  have  been  devised  to  take  its  place, 
and  seen  that  these,  too,  are  unsatisfactory,  and  mutually 
destructive  of  each  other. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  hear  without  surprise  that  such 
a  state  of  things  has  never  conducted  the  Christian  church 
to  a  haven  of  rest.  Beneath  the  hard  outside  shell  of  these 
discussions  there  has  ever  been  the  profound  abyss  of  deep 
emotion  in  view  of  the  vast  and  eternal  interests  involved, 
and  of  the  sacred  principles  of  equity  and  honor,  and  their 
bearing  on  the  character  of  God. 

Let  us  now  attempt,  for  a  few  moments,  to  look  into  the 
interior  of  this  vast  world  of  conflicting  thought  and  deep 
emotion. 

I  have  already  said  that  the  principles  of  honor  and 
right  towards  new-created  minds,  set  forth  by  Augustine, 
have  been  ever  since  fully  recognized  and  affirmed.  I  have 


DISQUIET    OF   THE    HUMAN    MIND.  325 

given  the  testimony  of  Turretin,  Wesley,  Watts,  and  the 
Princeton  divines,  to  this  effect.  The  Princeton  divines 
also  testify  that  the  views  of  the  Reformers  were  the  same. 
I  will  add  a  statement  from  Pictet  to  illustrate  these 
remarks.  He  says,  "  The  corruption  which  we  bring  from 
the  womb  of  our  mothers  is  a  very  great  evil,  for  it  is  the 
source  of  all  sins.  To  permit,  then,  that  this  corruption 
should  pass  from  their  fathers  to  their  children  is  to  inflict 
a  punishment.  But  how  is  it  that  God  should  punish 
men,  if  they  had  not  sinned,  and  if  they  were  not  guilty?" 
This  is  an  avowal  of  the  great  principle  that  God  is  bound 
to  give  all  new-created  beings  upright  moral  constitu 
tions  and  tendencies,  if  they  have  not  previously  for 
feited  their  rights.  According  to  Pictet,  this  forfeiture 
was  effected  by  Adam,  whose  sin  God  imputed  to  all  his 
posterity,  and  considered  as  their  sin,  before  they  had 
existed  or  acted.  Similar  evidence  is  abundant ;  but,  as  no 
one  denies  the  fact,  so  far  as  I  know,  it  is  needless  to  adduce 
more  proof. 

All  who  thus  hold  to  a  forfeiture  in  Adam  as  a  justifica 
tion  of  God  in  bringing  men  into  this  world  with  depraved 
natures,  and  strong  and  controlling  propensities  to  evil,  are 
wont  to  set  forth  in  the  strongest  terms  the  injustice  of 
dealing  thus  with  men  on  any  other  ground.  Though  they 
regard  God  as  the  immediate  creator  of  souls  in  every  gen 
eration,  yet,  by  the  aid  of  the  theory  of  imputation,  they 
speak  of  all  men  as  sinning  in  Adam.  Then,  by  the  aid  of 
the  imagination,  they  conceive  of  human  nature  as  cor 
rupted  in  Adam,  and  thus  speak  of  the  human  race  as  not 
having  such  natures  as  God  at  first  gave  them,  and  then 
declare  that  it  would  be  impious  to  regard  God  as  orig 
inally  giving  such  natures  to  his  creatures.  For  example, 
Wesley  says  : 

28 


326  CONFLICT    OF    AGES 

"  Highly  injurious,  indeed,  is  this  supposition  to  the  God 
of  our  nature.  Did  He  originally  give  us  such  a  nature  as 
this?  So,  like  that  of  a  wild  ass1  colt!  so  stupid,  so 
stubborn,  so  intractable ;  so  prone  to  evil ;  averse  to  good. 
Did  His  hands  form  and  fashion  us  thus  ?  No  wiser  or 
better  than  men  at  present  are  ?  If  I  believed  this,  that 
men  were  originally  what  they  are  now, — if  you  could  once 
convince  me  of  this, — I  could  not  go  so  far  as  to  be  a  Deist; 
I  must  either  be  a  Manichee  or  an  Atheist.  I  must  either 
believe  there  was  an  evil  God,  or  that  there  was  no  God 
at  all." 

Dr.  Watts  says  :  "  And  methinks,  when  I  take  a  just  sur 
vey  of  this  world,  with  all  the  inhabitants  of  it,  I  can  look 
upon  it  no  otherwise  than  as  a  grand  and  magnificent  struc 
ture  in  ruins,  wherein  lie  millions  of  rebels  against  their 
Creator  under  condemnation  to  misery  and  death ;  who  are, 
at  the  same  time,  sick  of  a  mortal  distemper,  and  disordered 
in  their  minds  even  to  distraction.  Hence  proceed  those 
numberless  follies  and  vices  which  are  practised  here  ;  and 
the  righteous  anger  of  an  offended  God,  visible  in  ten  thou 
sand  instances." 

Again,  after  a  survey  of  the  sinfulness  and  misery  of  man 
in  all  ages,  he  proceeds  to  say : 

"If  we  put  together  all  these  scenes  of  vice  and  misery, 
it  is  evident  that  creatures  lying  in  such  deplorable  circum 
stances  are  not  such  as  they  came  out  of  the  hands  of  their 
Creator,  who  is  wise,  holy  and  good.  His  wisdom,  which 
is  all  harmony  and  order,  would  not  suffer  Him  to  frame  a 
whole  race  of  beings  under  such  wild  and  innumerable  dis 
orders,  moral  as  well  as  natural.  His  holiness  would  not 
permit  Him  to  create  beings  with  innate  principles  of 
iniquity ;  nor  his  goodness,  to  produce  a  whole  order  of 
creatures  in  such  circumstances  of  pain,  torment  and  death. 


DISQUIET   OF  THE  HUMAN  MIND.  327 

11  Could  the  holy  and  blessed  God  originally  design  and 
frame  a  whole  world  of  intelligent  creatures  in  such  circum 
stances,  that  every  one  of  them  coming  into  being  according 
to  the  laws  of  nature,  in  a  long  succession  of  ages,  in 
different  climates,  of  different  constitutions  and  tempers, 
and  in  ten  thousand  thousand  different  stations  and  condi 
tions  of  life, —  that  every  one  of  them  should  break  the  laws 
of  reason,  and  more  or  less  defile  themselves  with  sin? 
That  every  one  should  offend  his  Maker, —  every  one  become 
guilty  in  his  sight?  Everyone  expose  himself  to  God;s 
displeasure,  to  pain  and  misery  and  mortality,  without  one 
single  exception  ?  If  men  were  such  creatures  as  God  at 
first  made  them,  would  not  one  man,  among  so  many  mil 
lions,  have  made  a  right  use  of  his  reason  and  conscience, 
and  so  have  avoided  sin  and  death  ?  Would  this  have  been 
the  universal  consequent  of  their  original  constitution,  as 
framed  by  the  hand  of  a  wise,  holy,  merciful  God  ?  What 
can  be  more  absurd  to  imagine  than  this  ?  Surely,  God 
made  man  upright  and  happy :  nor  could  all  these  mischiefs 
have  come  directly  from  our  Creator's  hand." 

From  what  has  been  said,  it  is  apparent  that  in  the 
formation  of  the  various  theories  of  forfeiture  which  have 
been  considered,  men  have  been  actuated  by  the  noblest 
impulses  of  their  nature  ;  they  have  desired  to  find  a  basis 
on  which  they  might  found  a  reconciliation  of  God's  actual 
treatment  of  the  human  race  with  the  demands  of  the 
highest  principles  of  honor  and  right  towards  new-created 
minds. 

As  we  have  said,  if  the  forfeiture  alleged  could  be  made 
out  by  any  of  their  schemes,  it  would  be  a  relief;  but,  as  it 
cannot,  it  is  no  relief.  Of  this  fact  some  even  of  the  most 
eminent  of  the  advocates  of  such  theories  seem  to  have 
had  uncomfortable  surmises.  Augustine,  as  we  have  seen. 


328  CONFLICT   OP   AGES. 

could  liscover  no  reason  to  rest  in  the  doctrine  of  a  for 
feiture,  except  on  the  assumption  that  all  human  souls 
came  from  the  soul  of  Adam ;  but  this  theory  Jerome 
rejected,  and  was  followed  by  the  most  of  the  schoolmen. 
These  same  schoolmen,  however,  originated  another  theory 
of  forfeiture, —  that  of  federal  headship, —  of  which  new 
theory  a  desire  to  escape  the  objections  of  Augustine  was 
clearly  the  moving  cause.  But  this  theory  also  has  failed 
to  give  rest  even  to  its  most  decided  advocates. 

Dr.  Watts,  for  example,  though  an  earnest  and  zealous 
defender  of  it  against  Dr.  J.  Taylor,  says :  "I  am  not  fond 
of  it.  No.  I  would  gladly  renounce  it  because  of  some 
great  difficulties  attending  it."  The  reason  for  not  re 
nouncing  it  which  he  assigns  is,  that,  in  his  view,  there  are 
greater  difficulties  attending  every  other  scheme.  He  held 
to  the  common  theory  that  souls  are  newly  created,  and  one 
of  his  chief  difficulties  lay  in  reconciling  it  with  the  good 
ness  and  justice  of  God  that  new-created  souls  should  be 
placed  in  bodies  in  and  by  which  they  were  sure  to  be 
morally  corrupted  in  consequence  of  the  sin  of  Adam. 
After  laboring  for  some  pages  to  effect  such  a  reconcilia 
tion,  he  does  not  seem  to  be  at  all  confident  that  he  has 
succeeded ;  nay,  he  betrays  an  inward  apprehension  that  he 
has  not,  for  he  says  : 

"I  am  doubtful  whether  this  solution  sets  the  matter  in 
such  a  sufficient  light  as  to  take  away  all  remaining  scruples 
from  a  curious  and  inquisitive  mind.  I  confess  it  is  the 
most  probable  hypothesis  I  can  think  of,  and  shall  be  glad 
to  see  this  perplexing  inquiry  more  happily  answered.  But, 
if  the  case  itself  be  matter  of  fact,  that  souls  are  defiled 
and  exposed  to  pain  by  being  united  to  human  bodies  so 
vitiated,  we  are  sure  it  must  be  just  and  equitable,  because 
God  has  thus  ordered  it,  though  we  should  not  find  out  a 


DISQUIET   OF   THE    HUMAN   MIND.  829 

happier  solution  of  the  difficulties  that  attend  it  in  this  dark 
and  imperfect  state." 

His  difficulties  were  the  same  which  were  felt  by  Augus 
tine  of  old,  and  which  have  never  as  yet  been  removed.  He 
could  not  but  feel  that  new-created  minds,  who  had  nothing 
to  do  with  Adam's  sin,  since  they  did  not  exist  when  he 
sinned,  were  hardly  dealt  with  in  being  treated  as  if  they 
had  forfeited  all  their  rights  as  new-created  minds  by  that 
act.  This  is  not  to  be  wandered  at.  It  is  a  difficulty  &o 
obvious  that  the  wonder  is  that  any  man  can  overlook  it, 
or,  if  he  does  not,  can  think  that  he  has  removed  it.  This 
difficulty  lies  on  the  very  face  of  the  solution  of  the  problem 
attempted  by  Turretin.  (L.  9,  Q.  12,  $  10.)  He  holds, 
with  Jerome  and  the  church  generally,  that  God  creates 
souls  to  animate  bodies,  but  creates  them  devoid  of  orig 
inal  righteousness,  ' '  of  which  man  had  rendered  himself 
unworthy  in  Adam.  For  God  is  under  no  obligation  to 
create  minds  with  original  righteousness ;  nay,  he  may 
most  justly  deprive  them  of  such  a  gift,  as  a  punishment  of 
the  sin  of  Adam."  Here,  then,  we  are  told  that  it  is  most 
just  for  God  to  punish  a  new-created  soul,  in  the  very  act 
of  its  creation,  for  an  act  which  took  place  thousands  of 
years  before  its  creation, —  that  is,  to  punish  it  by  creating 
it  without  original  righteousness, —  although,  without  this, 
its  moral  development  is  certainly  corrupt  and  ruinous,  so 
that  this  deprivation  is,  in  the  words  of  Prof.  Hodge,  ' £  of 
all  evils  the  essence  and  sum."  He  proceeds  to  add  "  that 
this  destitution  is  blamable  on  the  part  of  man,  because  it 
is  a  destitution  of  the  righteousness  that  ought  to  be  in 
him ;  but  as  it  respects  God  it  is  not  blamable,  since  it  is . 
an  act  of  vindictive  justice  in  punishing  the  first  sin." 
That  is.  a  new-created  mind  is  punished  for  a  sin  which 
it  did  not  commit,  by  being  created  devoid  of  righteousness, 
28* 


830  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

and  yet  is  criminal  for  not  having  that  righteousness  the 
possession  of  which  did  not  depend  upon  itself  at  all,  but 
solely  on  the  creative  act  of  God.  Moreover,  God  is  just 
in  all  this,  because  he  is  thus  punishing  Adam's  sin,  which 
the  new-created  mind  did  not  commit.  To  complete  the 
result,  a  mind  thus  defectively  created  is  then  put  into  a 
body  such  that  the  sympathy  of  the  two  inevitably  calls  into 
action  and  develops  its  depravity.  If,  now,  the  moral  sense 
recoils  from  this  as  anything  but  a  satisfactory  vindication 
of  God's  conduct  towards  the  new-created  souls  of  the 
human  race,  the  fault  lies  more  in  the  theory  from  which  it 
springs  than  in  Turretin.  He  calls  it  •'  a  most  obscure 
question;"  and,  to  use  the  words  of  Dr.  Watts,  resorted 
to  "  the  most  probable  hypothesis  he  could  think  of." 

But,  as  Dr.  -Watts  suggested  a  doubt  whether  his 
hypothesis  ' '  set  the  matter  in  a  sufficient  light  to  take 
away  all  remaining  scruples  from  a  curious  and  inquis 
itive  mind,"  so,  in  fact,  it  has  happened  with  the  hypoth 
esis  of  Turretin,  and  all  others  aiming  at  the  same  end. 
The  simple  fact  is,  that  the  problem  of  defending  such  a 
forfeiture  is  insoluble,  except  on  the  ground  of  a  real  pre- 
existence.  On  that  ground  it  can  be  defended  in  perfect 
accordance  with  the  principles  of  honor  and  right,  and  on 
no  other. 

It  is  not,  therefore,  to  be  wondered  at  that  in  all  ages 
the  theory  of  a  forfeiture  of  rights  in  Adam  has  been 
unsatisfactory  to  multitudes,  who  concur  with  the  great 
mass  of  Christian  divines  in  rejecting  preexistence. 

Nor  is  it  wonderful  that  finally  Haldane  should  try  to 
find  rest  by  refusing  to  think  at  all,  and,  on  the  authority 
of  God,  as  he  assumed,  declaring  that  Adam's  sin  is  our 
sin  as  really  and  as  truly  as  it  was  his,  and  that  this  is  the 
end  of  all  dispute. 


DISQUIET    OF   THE   HUMAN   MIND.  331 

But,  when  things  come  to  such  a  pass,  it  becomes  neces 
sary  to  be  quite  sure  that  God  has,  in  fact,  said  so,  before 
we  rest  in  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  Haldane ;  and  this  raises  a 
question  of  interpretation,  which  neither  he  nor  any  one 
else  can  evade.  Mr.  Haldane,  then,  as  well  as  the  rest,  has 
not  been  able  to  conduct  even  the  most  pious  man  to  a 
haven  of  rest. 

Finally,  when  we  consider  that  this  theory  of  a  forfeiture 
in  Adam  is  made  the  basis  of  the  redemption  of  the  church, 
and  that  to  justify  it  is  essential  to  any  sense  of  the  mercy 
of  God,  and  that  yet  to  Pascal  it  appeared  "  impossible  and 
unjust,"  and  to  Calvin  "the  most  remote  of  all  things  from 
common  sense,"  and  to  Prof.  Hodge  a  " profound  and  awful 
mystery,"  and  that  Dr.  Woods  is  "perplexed  and  con 
founded"  by  it,  and  that  the  advocates  of  it  mutually 
neutralize  each  other  by  their  contradictory  solutions,  we 
ought  not  to  be  surprised  that  in  successive  ages  men  have 
been  found  who  have  sought  relief  by  the  entire  rejection 
of  the  theory  itself.  And  yet  the  results  of  this  rejection 
have  not  been  such  as  to  furnish  the  desired  relief.  It  is 
my  next  object  to  consider  these  results. 


CHAPTER  X. 

FIRST     RESULT     OF    DENYING     A     FORFEITURE 
BEFORE     BIRTH. 

BUT,  when  the  idea  of  a  forfeiture  before  birth  is  rejected 
on  such  grounds  as  have  been  stated,  then  but  two  general 
courses  remain,  which  we  shall  consider  in  order.  The  first 
is  to  declare  that  men  are  born  such  and  in  such  circum 
stances  as  the  principles  of  honor  and  right  demand ;  and, 
of  course,  wre  land  at  once  arid  directly  in  Pelagianism  as 
implied  in  this  general  statement, — that  all  men  are  as  well 
off,  both  as  to  constitution  and  powers,  as  Adam  was  before 
his  sin.  For  God,  in  making  Adam,  of  course  gave  him  all 
that  was  due  to  a  new-created  mind,  and  he  gives  the  same 
to  all  men  as  fast  as  he  creates  them.  This  at  once  cuts 
up  by  the  roots  all  ideas  of  a  fall  in  Adam ;  or,  indeed,  in 
any  other  way.  It  regards  all  men  as  well  created  by  God, 
and  by  nature  in  full  possession  of  all  the  powers  which, 
as  a  practical  matter,  are  needed  perfectly  to  obey  him. 

Let  no  one  be  surprised  at  this  statement ;  for,  so  long 
as  the  opposite  view  of  a  fall  is  defended  and  justified  only 
on  the  ground  of  a  forfeiture  in  Adam,  it  is  plain  that  so 
long  as  the  principles  of  honor  and  right  —  as  the  defenders 
of  that  theory  have  ever  promulgated  and  maintained 
them  —  are  regarded  as  true,  there  is  no  logical  middle 
ground  between  a  just  forfeiture  of  rights  and  Pelagianism. 
We  say  this  on  the  assumption  that  it  is  not  for  a  moment 


FIRST  RESULT   OF  DENYING  A   FORFEITURE.         333 

to  be  supposed  that  God  ever  has  disregarded,  or  ever  will 
disregard,  in  his  dealings  with  new-created  minds,  their 
just  claims  according  to  the  laws  of  honor  and  right.  What 
those  claims  are  we  have  seen.  If  they  have  not  forfeited 
them,  then,  of  course,  they  have  them,  and  are  made,  as 
they  ought  to  be,  with  well-ordered  powers,  free  from  sin, 
and  in  the  image  of  God. 

This  general  course  of  reasoning  we  have  already  illus 
trated,  and  the  experience  to  which  it  gives  rise  in  the  case 
of  Dr.  Channing.  Substantially  the  same  course  of  rea 
soning  was  pursued  by  Pelagius  and  his  followers  in  the 
fifth  century,  by  the  Socinians  in  the  sixteenth,  and  by  Dr. 
John  Taylor  and  his  followers  in  the  eighteenth  century. 
It  is  true  that  Pelagius  did  not  see  the  logical  relations  of 
his  views  to  the  rest  of  the  system.  He  still  retained  and 
defended  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  of  the  incarnation 
and  atonement  of  Christ ;  and,  in  a  certain  sense,  of  the 
influences  of  the  Spirit.  But,  as  Dr.  Channing  well 
remarked,  these  doctrines  find  a  consistent  development 
only  in  a  system  based  on  the  doctrine  of  original  deprav 
ity.  The  power  of  the  church  system  prevented  this  logical 
development  in  the  days  of  Pelagius.  But,  soon  after  the 
opening  of  the  Reformation,  the  power  of  that  system  was 
so  far  broken,  and  consistent  and  free  thought  had  so  much 
more  scope,  that  the  whole  system  was  so  modified  as  better 
to  accord  with  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Pelagian 
theory  of  human  nature.  The  same  was  true  in  the  case 
of  Dr.  John  Taylor.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was 
dropped  in  each  case.  Yet,  at  first,  the  whole  system  was 
not  reduced  to  its  natural  and  consistent  level.  Socinus 
still  retained  the  worship  of  Christ,  and  persecuted  Davides 
for  dissenting  from  his  views.  Dr.  J.  Taylor  approximated 
as  near  to  the  Trinity  as  the  Arianism  of  Dr.  S.  Clarke 


334  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

would  allow.  He  also  did  not  remove  from  his  doctrine 
all  the  language  which  belonged  to  the  orthodox  doctrine  of 
the  atonement.  It  was  not  until  the  close  of  the  last  and 
the  beginning  of  the  present  century  that  the  principles  of 
the  Pelagian  theory  were  fully  and  consistently  developed 
in  modern  Unitarianism. 

No  one,  we  think,  who  holds  to  the  principles  of  honor 
and  right,  and  denies  a  forfeiture  of  rights  in  Adam,  or 
by  preexistence,  ought  to  censure  this  ultimate  development 
of  the  principles  of  Pelagianism  as  illogical  or  inconsistent. 
The  principles  of  honor  and  right  to  which  they  have  ever 
appealed  have  never,  so  far  as  we  know,  been  formally  denied 
by  any  orthodox  body.  Indeed,  the  most  orthodox  have 
had  the  highest  standard.  They  have  been  simply  evaded 
by  the  plea  of  a  forfeiture  in  Adam.  To  this  the  Pela 
gians  and  others  have  objected  that  it  is  irrational,  unscrip- 
tural,  at  war  with  the  intuitive  perceptions  of  the  humar. 
mind,  and  unjust. 

If  so,  then  the  logical  development  of  the  system  accord 
ing  to  the  highest  orthodox  principles  of  honor  and  right 
is,  that  men  are  created  by  God  with  well  constituted  and 
holy  minds,  tending  powerfully  to  all  that  is  good.  They 
are  not  morally  weak  or  impotent.  They  do  not  come 
under  the  delusive  and  controlling  power  of  evil  spirits. 
Indeed,  there  are  no  evil  spirits.  Moreover,  the  predomi 
nant  and  natural  developments  of  men,  in  all  ages,  are 
holy  and  good.  There  is  no  predominating  tendency  to 
selfishness,  dishonesty,  violence,  wrong,  war,  conquest  and 
oppression.  There  is  no  prevailing  tendency  to  idolatry, 
lust,  sensualism  and  pollution.  All  men,  as  a  universal 
fact,  develop  a  benevolent  and  holy  character,  loving  God 
supremely  and  their  neighbors  as  themselves,  and  mani- 


FIRST   RESULT   OF   DENYING   A   FORFEITURE.          835 

festing  it  in  all  the  organizations  of  society,  and  in  all  the 
business  and  duties  of  life. 

These  results,  however,  are  so  much  at  war  with  facts, 
that  they  react  upon  the  principles  from  which  they  flow. 
The  result  commonly  is  that  lower  views  are  adopted 
of  what  is  possible  in  new-created  minds.  Some  theory 
of  free  agency  is  adopted  which  excludes  the  idea  alike  of 
original  sin  and  original  righteousness.  Men  are  regarded 
as  free  agents,  beginning  life  ignorant  and  inexperienced, 
exposed  to  temptation,  with  powerful  appetites,  passions 
and  propensities,  and  yet  able  by  free  choice  to  form  a 
holy  character.  If  they  do  this,  they  are  holy  from  the 
beginning,  and  are  saved  by  obedience  to  the  law  of  God. 
That  this  could  be  done,  and  had  been  done,  was  taught  by 
the  Pelagians.  Hence  their  doctrine  that  men  can  be  saved 
by  the  law  as  well  as  by  the  gospel ;  and  that  some,  in  fact, 
have  lived  perfectly  holy  lives.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  men 
fall  into  sinful  habits, —  as  they  admitted  to  be  the  case 
to  a  lamentable  degree, — •they  needed,  not  regeneration 
by  special  and  supernatural  grace,  but  repentance  and 
reformation,  in  view  of  the  motives  of  the  law  and  of  the 
gospel.  Moreover,  the  proper  sphere  of  the  grace  of  God 
is  found  in  the  presentation  of  these  motives.  The  gospel 
exceeds  the  law  simply  as  a  more  powerful  presentation  of 
motives. 

It  appears,  then,  that  the  highest  views  of  the  principles 
of  honor  and  right  are  modified  and  reduced,  because, 
according  to  them,  men  would  be  better  than  even  Pela 
gians,  in  view  of 'facts,  can  maintain  them  to  be.  For,  look 
ing  at  the  history  of  this  world,  men  have,  in  fact,  sinned 
with  so  much  power,  and  energy,  and  perseverance,  that  it 
does  not  at  all  look  rational  to  suppose  that  they  are  born 
in  the  image  of  God,  understanding  it  to  denote  a  pcwer- 


336  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

ful  bias  to  good,  and  real  holiness.  They,  therefore,  resort 
to  a  theory  of  mere  free  will,  not  implying  either  sin  or 
holiness,  but  a  power  to  practise  either.  Starting  from 
this  point,  they  deduce  varieties  of  character  from  the  use 
made  by  men  of  their  free  will.  This  is,  certainly,  the 
best  view  that  facts  will  allow  them  to  take  of  man.  To 
assert  that  he  is  born  with  original  righteousness  and  a 
strong  bias  and  impulse  towards  holiness,  would  be  too 
palpably  at  war  with  facts. 

Of  course,  these  views  react  upon  their  ideas  of  the 
original  condition  and  character  of  Adam.  Denying  that 
men  are  now  in  a  fallen  state,  of  course  they  cannot  admit 
of  any  marked  contrast  between  them  and  Adam.  Hence 
they  regard  all  the  glowing  statements  which  we  have  set 
forth  as  to  the  original  perfection  of  his  constitution  and 
powers,  and  the  energy  of  his  holiness,  as  irrational  exag 
gerations.  Adam,  though  created  full-grown,  was  only  an 
inexperienced  free  agent,  who,  like  all  others,  needed  to 
form  a  character  by  the  exercise  of  his  free  will,  either  in 
sinning  or  in  obeying  God. 

A  tendency  to  depreciate  the  original  powers  and  per 
fection  of  Adam  is,  therefore,  the  natural  and  necessary 
result  of  any  theory  which,  denying  preexistence,  repre 
sents  the  present  condition  of  man  as  his  natural  state,  and 
not  a  fallen  condition.  The  more  Adam  is  exalted,  the 
greater  is  the  evidence  of  a  fall  from  his  state  to  the  present 
condition  of  man.  The  more  he  is  depressed,  the  less  is 
the  evidence  of  such  a  fall.  Hence,  the  final  result  is,  that 
our  ideas  of  free  agency  itself,  and  of  the  possible  capaci 
ties  of  created  minds,  are  seriously  lowered.  The  operation 
of  such  a  view  —  assuming  the  facts  of  human  depravity 
really  to  be  as  I  have  stated  them  —  is  as  if  a,  diseased 
man,  who  had  lived  only  in  a  hospital,  among  diseased 


FIRST    RESULT    OF    DENYING    A    FORFEITURE.          337 

attendants  and  patients,  should  form  his  ideas  of  the  normal 
state  of  the  powers  of  the  body,  and  of  good  health,  from 
such  specimens ;  and  should  justify  God  in  so  making  them, 
by  saying  that  they  were  as  well  made  and  organized  as 
could  reasonably  be  expected,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  all 
created  things  are  necessarily  limited  and  imperfect. 

We  have  already  remarked  that  there  has  been  in  all 
ages  a  large  body  of  Christians  whose  deep  experimental 
knowledge  of  their  own  sinfulness,  and  of  the  need  of  a 
thorough  supernatural  regeneration,  have  led  them  earnestly 
and  decidedly  to  reject  these  views,  and  to  retain  the  theory 
of  a  forfeiture  in  Adam,  notwithstanding  its  inconsistency 
with  the  first  principles  of  reason  and  of  morals.  Of  the 
facts  for  which  that  theory  proposed  to  account  they  were 
certain.  In  words,  at  least,  that  theory  did  account  for 
them ;  and  it  appeared  to  be  scriptural.  Therefore  they 
adopted  it.  The  arguments  of  the  Pelagians  against  the 
alleged  forfeiture  of  rights  were  never  answered,  and  never 
can  be.  Yet  still  the  power  of  Christian  consciousness 
was  so  great  that  it  trod  them  down,  for  the  sake  of  a  theory 
which  had  at  least  this  merit,  that  it  seemed  to  explain  the 
great  facts  of  human  depravity  and  ruin.  The  same  has 
been  true  in  every  subsequent  conflict.  In  a  large  body  of 
Christians,  Christian  consciousness  has  prevailed. 

In  accordance  with  these  views,  Neander  has  well  re 
marked,  concerning  the  condemnation  of  Pelagianism  in  the 
days  of  Augustine,  that,  although  Pelagianism  succumbed  to 
an  outward  force  of  the  civil  power,  yet  there  never  wras  a 
subsequent  and  violent  reaction,  since  "that  doctrine  con 
quered  which  had  on  its  side  the  voice  of  the  universal 
Christian  consciousness,  and  which  found  a  ready  point  of 
union  in  the  whole  life  and  experience  of  the  church,  as 
29 


338  CONFLICT    04'   AGES. 

expressed  in  its  prayers  and  in  all  its  liturgical  forms." 
(n.  599.) 

And  yet  the  principles  for  which  the  Pelagians  contended 
were  of  the  highest  and  noblest  kind.  They  contended,  as 
did  Dr.  Channing,  for  the  honor  of  God.  Neander  says  of 
Julian  of  Eclanum,  "  He  maintained  that  the  highest  object 
of  the  Christian  faith  itself,  the  doctrine  concerning  God, 
was  essentially  compromised  ;  "  for  the  Pelagians  and  their 
opponents  did  not  agree  even  in  their  doctrine  concerning 
God.  The  God  of  their  opponents  ' '  was  not  the  God  of  the 
gospel."  Accordingly,  Julian  says  to  Augustine,  "The 
children,  you  say,  do  not  bear  the  blame  of  their  own,  but 
of  another's  sins.  What  sort  of  sin  can  that  be '?  What  an 
unfeeling  wretch,  cruel,  forgetful  of  God  and  of  righteous 
ness,  an  inhuman  barbarian,  is  he  who  would  make  such 
innocent  creatures  as  little  children  bear  the  consequences 
of  transgressions  which  they  never  committed,  and  never 
could  commit  ?  God,  you  answer.  What  god  ?  For  there 
are  gods  many,  and  lords  many ;  but  we  worship  but  one 
God,  and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  What  God  dost  thou 
make  the  malefactor  ?  Here,  most  holy  priest,  and  most 
learned  orator,  thou  fabricatest  something  more  mournful 
and  frightful  than  the  brimstone  in  the  valley  of  Amsanctus. 
God  himself,  say  you,  who  commendeth  his  love  towards  us, 
who  even  spared  not  his  own  Son,  but  hath  given  him  up  for 
us  all,  he  so  determines, —  he  is  himself  the  persecutor  of 
those  that  are  born.  He  himself  consigns  to  eternal  fire, 
for  an  evil  will,  the  children  who,  as  he  knows,  can  have 
neither  a  good  nor  an  evil  will."  Dr.  Channing,  contend 
ing  for  the  same  great  interests,  expressed  himself  with  less 
excited  vehemence  and  personal  severity,  and  therefore  in 
better  taste.  But  his  conceptions  of  the  discord  of  the  facts 
alleged  with  the  character  of  God  were  no  less  keen  than 


FIRST   RESULT    OF   DENYING    A    FORFEITURE.         339 

those  of  Julian.  Hence  he  said,  "  They  take  from  us  our 
Father  in  heaven,  and  substitute  a  stern  and  unjust  Lord. 
Our  filial  love  and  reverence  rise  up  against  them.  We 
say,  Touch  anything  but  the  perfections  of  God.  Cast  no 
stain  on  that  spotless  purity  and  loveliness.  We  can  en 
dure  any  errors  but  those  which  subvert  or  unsettle,  the 
conviction  of  God's  paternal  goodness.  Urge  not  upon  us 
a  system  which  makes  existence  a  curse,  and  wraps  the 
universe  in  gloom." 

It  was  also  in  view  of  the  theory  of  the  imputation  of 
Adam's  sin  that  Whelpley.  in  the  name  of  New  England 
divinity,  said  :  "  The  idea  that  all  the  numerous  millions  of 
Adam's  posterity  deserve  the  ineffable  and  endless  torments 
of  hell,  for  a  single  act  of  his,  before  any  one  of  them 
existed,  is  repugnant  to  that  reason  that  God  has  given 
us,  is  subversive  of  all  possible  conceptions  of  justice.  I 
hesitate  not  to  say  that  no  scheme  of  religion  ever  prop 
agated  amongst  men  contains  a  more  monstrous,  a  more 
horrible  tenet.  The  atrocity  of  this  doctrine  is  beyond 
comparison.  The  visions  of  the  Koran,  the  fictions  of  the 
Sadder,  the  fables  of  the  Zendavesta,  all  give  place  to  this  : 
Rabbinical  legends,  Brahminical  vagaries,  all  vanish  before 
it."  It  were  easy  to  produce  similar  utterances  from 
Socinus  and  John  Taylor  and  their  followers ;  for,  in  fact, 
the  argument  has  been  one  and  the  same,  from  age  to  age. 
It  has  ever  been  a  bold,  earnest  and  eloquent  protest,  in 
the  name  of  the  immortal  principles  of  honor  and  right, 
against  the  imputation  to  the  God  of  the  universe  of  such 
acts  as  would  conflict  with  justice,  fatally  obscure  his  glory, 
and  fill  the  universe  itself  with  mourning  and  gloom. 


CHAPTER   XI. 

SECOND     RESULT     OF    DENYING    A    FORFEITURE 
BEFORE     BIRTH. 

WE  now  come  to  consider  the  second  general  course  that 
can  be  taken  by  those  who  reject  the  idea  of  a  forfeiture  in 
Adam,  and  do  not  hold  to  preexistence.  They  can  still  in 
theory  retain,  in  all  their  integrity  and  fulness,  the  facts 
of  human  depravity,  and  resolve  them  into  the  sovereign 
dispensations  of  God. 

This  development  is  an  important  part  of  New  England 
Theology,  and  seems  to  have  sprung  out  of  the  pressure  of 
the  arguments  used  by  Dr.  John  Taylor  in  his  celebrated 
work  against  original  sin.  In  his  day,  the  whole  Calvin- 
istic  world  held  to  the  theory  of  a  forfeiture  in  Adam,  in 
some  one  of  the  forms  which  have  been  set  forth.  Of 
course,  the  heaviest  artillery  of  Dr.  Taylor  was  brought  to 
bear  against  it.  And  yet  his  arguments  were  not  and 
could  not  be  novel.  Pelagius,  Julian,  Celestius,  Socinus 
and  many  others,  had  employed  them  before  him,  as  we 
have  shown.  But  he  bore  with  especial  force  upon  the 
great  point,  that  it  was  inconsistent  with  all  just  concep 
tions  of  personal  identity  and  of  justice  to  consider  and  treat 
the  sin  of  Adam  as  that  of  his  posterity.  He  says  : 

"How  mankind,  who  were  perfectly  innocent  of  Adam's 
sin,  could,  for  that  sin  and  upon  no  other  account,  be  justly 


SECOND    RESULT   OF   DENYING   A   FORFEITURE.        341 

brought  under  God's-  displeasure  and  curse,  we  cannot 
understand.  But,  on  the  contrary,  we  do  understand, 
and  by  our  faculties  must  necessarily  judge,  according  to 
all  rules  of  equity,  it  is  unjust.  And  therefore,  unless 
our  understanding,  or  perception  of  truth,  be  false, —  that  is, 
unless  we  do  not  understand  what  we  do  understand,  or 
understand  that  to  be  true  which  other  minds  understand  to 
be  false, —  it  must  be  unjust" 

Again,  "  That  any  man,  without  my  knowledge  or  con 
sent,  should  so  represent  me  that  when  he  is  guilty  I  am 
to  be  reputed  guilty,  and  when  he  transgresses  I  shall  be 
accountable  and  punishable  for  his  transgression,  and 
thereby  subjected  to  the  wrath  and  curse  of  God;  nay, 
further,  that  his  wickedness  shall  give  me  a  sinful  nature, 
and  all  this  before  I  am  born,  and  consequently  while  I 
am  in  no  capacity  of  knowing,  helping  or  hindering,  what  he 
doth ;  —  surely  any  one,  who  dares  use  his  understanding, 
must  clearly  see  this  is  unreasonable,  and  altogether  incon 
sistent  with  the  truth  and  goodness  of  God.  We  may  call 
it  a  righteous  constitution,  but  in  the  nature  of  things  it  is 
absolutely  impossible  we  should  prove  it  to  be  so."  (S. 
109.) 

' l  Understanding  cannot  be  various,  but  must  be  the 
same  in  all  beings,  so  far  as  they -do  understand.  And 
therefore,  if  we  understand  that  it  is  unjust  that  the 
innocent  should  be  under  displeasure  or  a  curse  (and  we  see 
it  very  clearly,  as  clearly  as  we  see  that  that  which  is,  is, 
or  that  which  is  not,  is  not),  then  God  understands  it  to  be 
BO  too."  (p.  151.) 

This  is  simply  an  assertion  that  the  intuitive  perceptions 
of  truth  and  right,  given  by  God  to  us  in  the  structure  of 
our  minds,  must  accord  with  the  reality  of  things,  and  the 
perceptions  of  all  minds,  including  that  of  God  himself. 
29* 


342  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

At  the  close  of  his  last  statement,  he  says,  very  much  in 
the  spirit  of  Julian  of  Eclanum,  "And  pray  consider 
seriously  what  a  God  he  must  be  who  can  be  displeased 
with  and  curse  his  innocent  creatures,  even  before  they  have 
a  being."  (p.  151.) 

The  younger  Edwards  informs  us  that  "in  their  day 
Drs.  Watts  and  Doddridge  were  accounted  leaders  of  the 
Calvinists."  They,  in-  this  great  emergency,  put  forth 
their  energies  to  defend  the  received  doctrine  of  a  forfeiture 
in  Adam.  The  celebrated  John  Wesley  united  his  energies 
with  theirs  in  the  defence  of  this  common  ground.  He  says  to 
Dr.  Taylor  :  "  In  your  second  part  you  profess  to  '  examine 
the  principal  passages  of  scripture  which  divines  have  ap 
plied  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  ;  particularly 
those  cited  by  the  Assembly  of  Divines  in  their  Larger 
Catechism?  To  this  I  never  subscribed;  but  I  think  it,  in 
the  main,  an  excellent  composition,  which  I  shall  therefore 
cheerfully  endeavor  to  defend,  so  far  as  I  conceive  it  is 
grounded  on  clear  scripture."  (p.  132,  Doc.  of  Orig.  Sin.) 
He  also  quotes  a  large  portion  of  the  work  of  Watts  on  the 
same  subject. 

Edwards  had  seen  and  studied  the  work  of  Watts  before 
he  wrote ;  for  he  makes  strictures  on  some  of  its  positions. 
Nor  did  he  deem  it  a  sufficient  defence, — otherwise  he  would 
not  have  written  his  own.  But,  in  his  reply  to  the  argu 
ments  of  Taylor  against  the  current  theory  of  a  forfeiture 
in  Adam,  he  was  so  hard  driven  by  the  argument  from  the 
diversity  of  personal  identity,  the  amount  of  which  he  thus 
states,  that  "Adam  and  his  posterity  are  not  one,  but 
entirely  distinct  agents,"  that  he  took  the  ground  that 
there  is  no  such  thing  as  identity  or  oneness  in  created 
objects  existing  in  successive  moments,  "but  what  depends 
on  the  arbitrary  constitution  of  the  Creator," — (p.  224,  vol. 


SECOND    RESULT   OF    DENYING    A    FORFEITURE.        343 

I.).  Hence  it  all  "  depends  on  God's  sovereign  constitu 
tion.^'  This  he  proves  by  the  consideration  that  preserva 
tion  or  upholding  of  objects,  or  persons,  is  a  mere  series  of 
new  momentary  separate  creations,  which  are  united  as  the 
same  identical  existence,  not  by  the  nature  of  things,  but  by 
God's  will.  And  so  the  objection  that  Adam  and  his  pos 
terity  are  not  and  cannot  be  one  and  the  same  agent,  or 
justly  be  treated  as  such,  u  is  built  on  a  false  hypothesis; 
for  it  appears  that  a  divine  constitution  is  what  makes 
truth  in  affairs  of  this  nature."  (The  italics  are  as  Ed 
wards  left  them. )  Thus  Edwards,  in  a  way  unthought  of  by 
Augustine,  or  Watts,  or  Turretin,  made  out  and  defended 
his  theory  of  a  forfeiture  in  Adam,  by  resolving  personal 
identity  itself  into  an  arbitrary  sovereign  constitution  of 
God,  thus  opening  the  way  to  make  Adam  and  his  posterity 
all  one  person  by  such  a  constitution.  In  order  to  complete 
his  explanation,  Edwards  ought  still  further  to  have  shown 
how,  after  God  had  thus  made  Adam  and  his  posterity  as 
really  and  truly  one  and  the  same  person  as  a  man  is  dur 
ing  the  different  portions  of  his  life,  it  did  not  follow  that 
all  the  sins  of  Adam,  and,  indeed,  of  all  other  men,  are  our 
sins.  There  is  no  way  to  avoid  this  consequence  but  to 
limit  the  operation  of  ' '  the  arbitrary  constitution  of  the  Cre 
ator  "  to  only  one  of  Adam's  sins,  and  to  exclude  from  its 
operation  all  the  sins  of  other  men.  This  certainly  would 
merit  in  the  highest  degree  the  name  of  an  arbitrary  con 
stitution.  It  only  the  more  clearly  shows  to  what  straits 
Edwards  was  reduced  in  attempting  to  defend  the  doctrine  of 
a  forfeiture  in  Adam  against  the  divinely-given  and  intuitive 
convictions  of  the  human  mind  on  the  subject  of  personal 
identity.  This  theory  of  Edwards  is  at  war  with  the  theory 
of  Prof.  Shedd.  yet  he  eulogizes  this  reasoning  of  Edwards  as 
profound  and  true.  Nevertheless,  it  appears  to  have  been 


344  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

too  much  for  Hopkins  to  receive.  He  seems  to  have 
thought  that  here  Edwards  had  strained  his  metaphysical 
bow  until  it  broke.  Nor  was  he  ignorant  of  what  the 
European  divines  had  said  to  defend  the  theory  of  a  for 
feiture  in  Adam.  He  had  also  carefully  studied  John  Tay 
lor,  and  had,  no  doubt,  examined  the  argument  of  Dr.  Watts 
in  reply  to  him  ;  and,  on  the  whole,  he  concluded  that  the 
theory  of.  a  forfeiture  was  not  defensible  on  any  ground,  and 
he  abandoned  it,  and  threw  himself  simply  upon  divine 
sovereignty. 

What,  then,  is  the  real  significance  of  this  position  ?  It 
is,  in  brief,  this,  —  although  men  did  not  sin  in  Adam,  and 
thus  forfeit  their  claims  as  new-created  beings,  yet  God,  in 
fact,  treats  them  as  if  they  had.  There  was  no  forfeiture, 
and  yet  God  treats  men  as  if  there  had  been.  He  does  not 
enter  into  communion  with  them,  as  they  come  into  exist 
ence.  He  does  not  bestow  upon  them  a  divine  influence 
which  secures  the  right  development  of  their  moral  char 
acters.  On  the  other  hand,  he  has  in  some  way,  by  a 
divine  constitution  of  things,  established  such  a  connection 
between  the  sin  of  Adam  and  his  posterity  that  it  will 
infallibly  secure  a  wrong  development  of  character  in  them, 
amounting  to  total  depravity  and  utter  ruin.  Moreover, 
this  depravity  is  so  strong  that  no  power  short  of  the 
almighty  energy  of  the  Holy  Spirit  can  overcome  it. 

This  theory,  as  commonly  stated,  involves,  first,  a  denial 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  and  of  a 
forfeiture  of  rights,  and  an  exposure  to  punishment  by  it  ; 
and,  secondly,  the  existence  of  a  fixed  and  infallible  connec 
tion  between  Adam's  sin  and  the  depravity  of  his  posterity. 
Thus,  Dr.  Hopkins  states  his  views  as  follows  : 

"It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  offence  of  Adam  is 
imputed  to  them  to  their  condemnation,  while  they  are  con- 


SECOND    RESULT   OF   DENYING   A   FORFEITURE.        345 

Y 

sidered  as  in  themselves  in  their  own  persons  innocent ; 
or  that  they  are  guilty  of  the  sin  of  their  first  father,  ante 
cedently  to  their  own  personal  sinfulness."  "  It  is  care 
fully  to  be  observed  that  they  are  not  constituted  sinners 
by  his  disobedience  as  a  punishment,  or  the  penalty  of  the 
law  coming  upon  them  for  his  sin."  (Vol.  m.  318.) 

Again,  ' '  All  that  is  asserted  as  what  the  Scripture 
teaches  on  this  head  is,  that,  by  a  divine  constitution,  there 
is  a  certain  connection  between  the  first  sin  of  Adam  and 
the  sinfulness  of  his  posterity ;  so  that,  as  he  sinned  and  fell 
under  condemnation,  they,  in  consequence  of  this,  became 
sinful  and  condemned."  (Ibid.) 

This  was,  in  the  circumstances,  a  bold  step  for  a  Calvin- 
ist.  But  the  younger  Edwards,  Dwight,  Emmons,  and 
other  leading  New  England  divines,  followed  in  his  steps. 
Bellamy,  it  is  true,  still  defended  the  ancient  view ;  but  it 
has  long  since  ceased  to  be  any  proper  part  of  New  England 
theology  as  distinguished  from  old  Calvinism. 

The  younger  Edwards,  in  his  views  of  the  improvements 
in  theology  effected  either  by  his  father  or  by  his  followers, 
says,  on  this  point,  "  The  common  doctrine  has  been  that 
Adam's  posterity,  unless  saved  by  Christ,  are  damned  (con 
demned)  on  account  of  Adam's  sin ;  and  that  this  is  just, 
because  his  sin  is  imputed  or  transferred  to  them.  By 
imputation,  his  sin  becomes  their  sin.  When  the  justice  of 
such  a  transfer  is  demanded,  it  is  said  that  the  constitution 
which  God  has  established  makes  the  transfer  just.  To 
this  it  may  be  replied,  that  in  the  same  way  it  may  be 
proved  just  to  damn  (condemn)  a  man  without  any  sin  at 
all,  either  personal  or  imputed.  We  need  only  resolve  it 
into  a  sovereign  constitution  of  God.  From  this  difficulty 
the  followers  of  Mr.  Edwards  relieve  themselves,  by  hold 
ing  that,  though  Adam  was  so  constituted  the  federal  head  , 


346  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

of  his  posterity  that  in  consequence  of  his  sin  they  all  sin 
or  become  sinners,  yet  they  are  damned  (condemned)  on 
account  of  their  own  personal  sin  merely,  and  not  on 
account  of  Adam's  sin:  as  though  they  were  individually 
guilty  of  his  identical  transgression."  (Vol.  I.  487.) 

Dr.  D wight  simply  says,  "  The  corruption  of  mankind 
exists  in  consequence  of  the  apostasy  of  Adam."  "  I  do 
not  intend'  that  the  posterity  of  Adam  are  guilty  of  his 
transgression."  "  Neither  do  I  intend  that  the  descendants 
of  Adam  are  punished  for  his  transgression."  lt  By  means 
of  the  offence  or  transgression  of  Adam,  the  judgment  or 
sentence  of  God  came  upon  all  men  unto  condemnation ; 
because,  and  solely  because,  all  men,  hi  that  state  of  things 
which  was  constituted  in  consequence  of  the  transgression 
of  Adam,  become  sinners." 

Of  the  mode  in  which  this  effect  results,  he  says,  "  I  am 
unable  to  explain  this  part  of  the  subject.  Many  attempts 
have  been  made  to  explain  it ;  but  I  freely  confess  myself  to 
have  seen  none  which  was  satisfactory  to  me ;  or  which 
did  not  leave  the  difficulties  as  great,  and,  for  aught  I  know, 
as  numerous,  as  they  were  before." 

Emmons  no  less  distinctly  denies  sinning  in  Adam  and 
imputation  in  every  form.  In  the  train  of  these  the 
majority  of  the  divines  of  New  England  have  followed,  as 
well  as  a  large  party  in  other  parts  of  the  United  States. 

They  differ,  indeed,  in  their  mode  of  accounting  for  the 
universal  sinfulness  which  results  from  the  fall  of  Adam : 
some,  as  we  have  seen,  resolving  it  into  no  natural  causes, 
but  into  a  stated  mode  of  divine  efficiency,  called  a  divine 
constitution ;  others  resolving  it  into  the  natural  operation 
of  the  laws  of  procreation  and  descent,  transmitting  a  dete 
riorated  constitution  and  sinful  propensities. 

But,  meantime,  the  question  naturally  arises,  How  are 


SECOND    RESULT   OF   DENYING    A    FORFEITURE.        347 

these  things  consistent  with  the  demands  of  the  great  laws 
of  honor  and  right  in  reference  to  new-created  minds  ? 
These  laws  have  been  stated,  and  we  see  that  they  have  been 
held  for  ages,  as  the  intuitive  moral  perceptions  of  the  mind. 
Are  they  not  so  1  If  they  are, — if  new-created  minds  have 
rights,  and  there  has  been  no  forfeiture  of  them, — then  how 
can  God  be  justified  in  the  course  alleged?  It  is  not 
enough  to  resort  to  the  idea  of  sovereignty.  God,  as  a  sov 
ereign,  has  no  authority  to  disregard  the  original  rights  of 
his  creatures.  Does  any  one  resort  to  the  law  of  genera 
tion  ?  This  is  a  mere  ordinance  of  God.  The  question  still 
arises,  How  is  he  to  be  defended  in  establishing  and  main 
taining  it?  On  this  point,  Dr.  Watts  says,  "  This  natural 
propagation  of  sinful  inclinations  from  a  common  parent, 
by  a  law  of  creation,  seems  difficult  to  be  reconciled  with  the 
goodness  and  justice  of  God  (that  is,  without  a  previous 
forfeiture).  It  seems  exceeding  hard  to  suppose  that  such 
a  righteous  and  holy  God,  the  Creator,  who  is  also  a  being 
of  such  infinite  goodness,  should,  by  a  powerful  law  and 
order  of  creation,  which  is  now  called  nature,  appoint  young, 
intelligent  creatures  to  come  into  being  in  such  unhappy 
and  degenerate  circumstances,  liable  to  such  intense  pains 
and  miseries,  and  under  such  powerful  tendencies  and  pro 
pensities  to  evil,  by  the  mere  law  of  propagation,  as  should 
almost  unavoidably  expose  them  to  ten  thousand  actual  sins, 
and  all  this  before  they  have  any  personal  sin  or  guilt  to 
deserve  it."  In  a  note  he  adds : 

"If  it  could  be  well  made  out  that  the  whole  race  of 
mankind  are  partakers  of  sinful  inclinations,  and  evil  pas 
sions,  and  biases  to  vice,  and  also  are  exposed  to  many 
sharp  actual  sufferings  and  to  death,  merely  and  only  by 
the  original  divine  law  of  propagation  from  their  parents 
who  had  sinned  ;  and,  if  the  justice  and  goodness  of  God 


348  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

could  be  vindicated  in  making  and  maintaining  such  a 
dreadful  law  or  order  of  propagation  through  six  thou 
sand  years,  we  have  no  need  of  further  inquiries,  but  might 
here  be  at  rest.  But,  if  the  scheme  be  so  injurious  to  the 
goodness  and  equity  of  God  as  it  seems  to  be,  then  we  are 
constrained  to  seek  a  little  further  for  a  satisfactory  account 
of  this  universal  degeneracy  and  misery  of  mankind." 

These,  as  we  have  seen,  are  also  the  views  of  the  Prince 
ton  divines ;  paid,  indeed,  of  all  who  hold  the  old  system  of 
a  forfeiture  in  Adam.  With  them  the  Unitarians  coincide. 
Nor  is  any  relief  found  by  resolving  the  results  in  question 
into  a  stated  mode  of  divine  efficiency,  instead  of  a  law  or 
order  of  propagation.  Indeed,  this  view  seems  less  to  accord 
with  the  principles  of  honor  and  right  than  any  other  which 
has  yet  been  considered. 

We  come,  then,  once  more  to  the  final  result,  that  every 
theory  of  forfeiture  before  birth  that  denies  preexistence 
has  failed,  and  must  fail,  to  give  permanent  rest  to  good 
men.  Moreover,  the  results  of  entirely  rejecting  the  theory 
of  a  forfeiture  before  birth  are  equally  unsatisfactory,  and 
are  often  in  the  highest  degree  injurious.  We  have  also 
seen  that  this  fact  is  owing  to  the  existence  of  a  real  conflict 
between  the  actual  facts  of  this  system,  and  the  principles 
of  honor  and  right,  on  the  assumption  that  this  is  our  first 
state  of  existence.  We  have  also  seen  that,  by  assuming 
the  theory  of  a  real  preexistence,  this  conflict  can  be 
entirely  removed,  and  all  the  powers  of  the  mind  find  rest. 
It  follows  that  the  existing  system  has  thus  far  acted  as  if 
it  had  been  deranged  by  a  falsehood.  It  remains  to  be 
tried  whether  the  system  that  I  propose  will  not  act  as  if 
it  had  been  properly  readjusted  by  the  truth.  Certainly, 
the  first  view  has  had  a  fair  trial.  Is  it  not  time,  at  least, 
to  give  the  other  a  fair  ^portunity  to  develop  its  genuine 
results? 


CHAPTER    XII. 

OTHER     INEFFECTUAL     EFFORTS     FOR     RELIEF. 

WE  have  considered  the  Augustinian  doctrine  of  a  for 
feiture  in  Adam  of  the  rights  of  new-created  minds  by  the 
whole  human  race,  and  of  the  conflict  existing  between  it 
and  the  principles  of  equity  and  honor.  We  have  also  set 
forth  the  results  of  an  entire  rejection  of  the  doctrine  of 
such  a  forfeiture  in  any  way,  and  have  seen  that  there  is 
no  available  relief  to  be  found  in  this  course. 

It  remains  that  I  consider  some  other  ineffectual  efforts  to 
find  relief  by  those  who  hold  the  common  doctrine  of  for 
feiture.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  doctrine,  as  held 
by  Augustine,  exalted  the  original  rights  of  new-created 
minds  to  a  very  high  point,  and  then  represented  the  effects 
of  the  forfeiture  through  Adam  as  very  disastrous.  In 
consequence  of  it,  man  inherits  a  nature  so  deranged  and 
sinful  that  he  has  lost  free  will  and  the  power  of  doing  good 
works,  or  of  saving  himself  by  repentance  and  faith.  Of 
course,  as  man  has  not  the  power  to  accept  the  offers  of 
mercy,  God  could  not  foresee  that  any  would  accept  of  them, 
nor  predestinate  them  to  life  on  that  ground.  Hence  the 
doctrines  of  absolute  and  unconditional  predestination,  of 
passive  regeneration,  and  of  irresistible  grace. 

As  was  to  be  expected,  this  view  was  early  assailed  by 
the  Semipelagians,  under  Cassian,  as  at  war  with  the  char 
acter  of  God,  and  a  return  to  the  exploded  errors  of  fatalism. 
30 


350  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

Nevertheless,  in  the  case  of  a  large  portion  of  Christians  in 
every  age,  this  assault  has  not  led  to  a  rejection  of  the  doc 
trine  of  a  forfeiture  in  Adam,  but  to  a  modification  and  soft 
ening  of  the  Augustinian  form  of  that  doctrine.  This  has 
been  attempted  in  two  ways  :  —  the  first,  by  giving  a  milder 
view  of  the  effects  of  the  forfeiture  itself ;  the  second,  by 
introducing  the  idea  of  a  gracious  ability  restored  by  Christ 
to  all  the  race,  after  their  original  ability  had  been  entirely 
destroyed  by  the  fall.  By  the  first  of  these  methods,  the 
Roman  Catholic  church,  though  at  first  they  condemned  the 
Semipelagians.  at  last,  revolting  from  Luther,  and  under 
the  guidance  of  the  Jesuits,  decided,  in  the  Council  of 
Trent,  in  direct  opposition  to  Augustine,  that  free  will  was 
not  wholly  extinguished  by  the  fall,  although  they  conceded 
that  it  was  debilitated  and  depressed.  (Decree  on  Justifi 
cation,  chap,  i.)  They  also  decided  that  man,  in  the  work 
of  moral  renovation,  is  not  passive,  and  that  grace  is  not 
irresistible  ;  but  that  man,  when  acted  on  by  God,  freely 
cooperates  with  the  divine  influence,  and  has  at  all  times 
the  power  to  resist  it.  (Chap,  v.)  The  fifth  and  sixth 
anathemas,  which  follow  the  Decree  on  Justification,  are 
also  directed  against  all  who  shall  deny  these  positions.  At 
the  same  time,  they  continue  to  announce  the  doctrine  of 
the  forfeiture  in  Adam,  in  the  most  decided  terms.  They 
assert  that  "infants  derive  from  Adam  that  original  guilt 
which  must  be  expiated  in  the  laver  of  regeneration,  in 
order  to  obtain  eternal  life,"  and  that  "Adam  lost  the 
purity  and  righteousness  which  he  received  from  God,  not 
for  himself  only,  but  also  for  us."  (Decree  on  Original 
Sin,  ii.  and  IV.)  In  view  of  these  decisions,  the  Catechism 
of  the  Council  of  Trent  says,  "  The  pastor,  therefore,  will 
not  omit  to  remind  the  faithful  that  the  guilt  and  punish 
ment  of  original  sin  were  not  confined  to  Adam,  but  justly 


OTHER  INEFFECTUAL  EFFORTS  FOR  RELIEF.    351 

descended  from  him,  as  from  their  source  and  cause,  to  all 
posterity."  Hence,  it  is  added,  "a  sentence  of  condemna 
tion  was  pronounced  against  the  human  race  immediately 
after  the  fall  of  Adam."  (p.  37,  38,  Baltimore  edition.) 
In  taking  their  ground  as  to  free  will,  the  Romish  church 
coincided  with  the  Semipelagians,  who,  in  opposition  to 
Augustine,  held  that  there  still  remained  in  man,  after  the 
fall,  some  power  to  perform  good  works,  and  to  cooperate 
with  God  in  effecting  their  own  salvation.  The  Semipela 
gians  also  still  further  maintained  that  God's  decree  of 
election  and  predestination  was  based  upon  a  foresight  of 
the  use  which  men  would  make  of  this  power.  This  form 
of  the  doctrine  of  predestination,  however,  has  never  been 
formally  established  within  the  Romish  church,  but  has 
been,  from  age  to  age,  the  subject  of  fierce  controversies. 
It  was  held  by  the  followers  of  Duns  Scotus,  Molina,  and 
others.  The  Augustinian  doctrine  on  this  point,  however, 
has  always  had  its  earnest  defenders  in  that  church. 
Although  Wiggers  regards  Semipelagianism  as  being  the 
predominant  system  in  the  middle  age  to  the  time  of  Luther, 
yet  it  was  so  rather  in  its  fundamental  principles  as  to  free 
will  and  power,  than  in  an  ultimate  development  of  them  in 
the  form  of  a  conditional  predestination. 

The  second  mode  of  modifying  the  Augustinian  doctrine  is 
that  of  Arminius,  in  which  he  is  followed  by  Wesley,  Wat 
son,  and  other  leading  divines  of  the  Methodist  denomina 
tion.  By  these  divines  the  same  view  is  given  of  the 
effects  of  the  forfeiture  in  Adam  as  was  given  by  Augustine 
and  the  Reformers.  They  hold  to  the  entire  destruction  of 
free  will  in  all  men  by  the  fall.  Arminius,  as  quoted  by 
Watson,  says  "  that  the  will  of  man,  with  respect  to  true 
good,  is  not  only  wounded,  bruised,  inferior,  crooked  and 
attenuated,  but  it  is,  likewise,  captivated,  destroyed  and 


352  CONFLICT    OF  AGES. 

lost ;  and  has  no  powers  whatever,  except  such  as  are 
excited  by  grace."  (Watson's  Theol.  List.  vol.  n.  p.  46.) 
Watson  also  says  that  on  this  point  the  true  Arminians 
agree  with  the  Augsburgh  Confession,  the  French  Calvin- 
istic  churches,  the  Calvinistic  church  of  Scotland,  and 
Calvin  himself,  (p.  47.)  He  adds,  that  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  corruption  of  our  common  nature,  and  man's  natural 
incapacity  to  do  good,  the  Arminians  and  Calvinists  so  well 
agree,  "  that  it  is  an  entire  delusion  to  represent  this  doc 
trine,  as  is  often  done,  as  exclusively  Calvinistic."  (p.  48.) 
Hence  Wesley  joined  with  Watts,  against  Dr.  J.  Taylor,  in 
its  defence,  as  we  have  seen.  As  to  the  extent  of  the  for 
feiture  in  Adam,  Watson  says  that  "the  death  threatened 
as  the  penalty  of  Adam's  transgression  included  corporeal, 
moral  or  spiritual  and  eternal  death,  and  that  the  sentence 
included  the  whole  of  his  posterity."  (p.  61.)  There  is 
also  an  entire  coincidence  between  the  arguments  of  Wesley, 
Fletcher  and  Watson,  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  original  sin, 
and  those  of  Watts  and  Edwards. 

The  modification  of  the  Augustinian  system  introduced  by 
Arminian  divines  is  effected  by  their  doctrine  that,  in  con 
sequence  of  the  death  of  Christ,  a  gracious  ability  is  restored 
to  all  men  in  a  sufficient  degree  to  enable  them  to  embrace 
the  gospel.  This  is  called  by  Fletcher  "a  gracious  free 
agency ;"  and  Watson  says  that  by  it  is  communicated  "a 
power  of  willing  to  come  to  Christ,  even  when  men  do  not 
come, —  a  power  of  considering  their  ways  and  turning  to 
the  Lord,  when  they  do  not  consider  them  and  turn  to 
him."  (p.  377.)  Upon  the  foreseen  use  of  this  power 
they  base  the  eternal  decision  of  God  as  to  man's  salvation, 
and  thus  arrive  at  the  ancient  doctrine  of  conditional  pre 
destination,  although  in  a  different  way  from  the  Semipela- 
gians  and  the  early  Greek  church. 


OTHER   INEFFECTUAL    EFFORTS   FOR    RELIEF. 

It  is  not  my  purpose  to  enter  into  a  discussion  of  the 
points  at  issue,  between  the  Arminians  and  the  Calvinists, 
with  reference  to  this  doctrine.  I  will  only  say,  that, 
under  a  system  of  real  preexistence  there  is  an  important 
truth  which  is  very  nearly  related  to  the  doctrine  of 
gracious  ability,  though  not  identical  with  it,  but  which  I 
have  not  space  now  to  develop. 

But  my  main  object  is  to  say  that,  so  long  as  the  idea  of 
a  forfeiture  in  Adam  is  retained,  and  real  preexistence  is 
denied,  neither  of  the  modifications  which  I  have  described 
is  effectual  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  principles  of  equity 
and  of  honor. 

As  we  have  seen,  Wesley  places  the  demands  of  these 
principles  as  high  as  Augustine,  Dr.  Watts,  or  any  of  the 
Reformers. 

According  to  these  principles,  God  is  bound  to  give  to 
every  new-created  being  a  sound  and  healthy  moral  consti 
tution,  perfect  free  will,  and  predominant  tendencies  to 
good.  Accordingly,  Wesley  perfectly  accords  with  Augus 
tine,  Turretin,  Watts,  and  the  Reformers,  in  holding  that 
to  make  new-created  beings  either  neutral,  or  with  a  pre 
ponderance  towards  evil,  would  be  highly  unjust  and 
dishonorable  in  God.  Unless  these  rights  have  been  for 
feited,  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  dishonorable  in  God  to 
disregard  them. 

Now,  that  men  are  born  without  such  constitutions  and 
propensities,  and  not  in  such  circumstances  as  these  princi 
ples  demand,  is  conceded  by  Romanists,  Semipelagians  and 
Arminians,  as  well  as  by  Calvinists.  True,  the  Romanists 
and  Semipelagians  do  not  regard  free  will  as  annihilated  by 
the  fall.  Nevertheless,  they  concede  that  it  is  weakened 
and  depressed,  and  that  the  mind  is  full  of  corrupt  propen 
sities,  all  strongly  tending  towards  evil,  so  that  without 
30* 


354  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

divine  grace  man  will  surely  perish.  It  follows  that  man  is 
as  truly  wronged  as  on  the  Augustinian  supposition,  even 
if  not  to  the  same  extent.  There  is,  in  principle,  no  differ 
ence  in  the  two  cases,  and  this  modification  of  the  system 
furnishes  no  relief. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Arminians  allege  that  by  divine 
grace,  through  Christ,  free  agency  has  been  restored  to  all 
men.  Even  if  this  were  conceded,  it  does  not  bring  them 
up  to  the  point  demanded  by  the  principles  of  equity  and 
honor ;  for  they  still  have  depraved  natures,  and  are  full  of 
propensities  to  evil,  which  are  certain  to  ruin  them  if  God 
does  not  interpose.  But  this  is  contrary  to  the  demands  of 
the  laws  of  honor  and  right  with  reference  to  new-created 
minds,  as  set  forth  by  Wesley  and  the  Reformers. 

But,  if,  even  notwithstanding  gracious  ability,  men  are 
wronged,  still  more  are  they  wronged  by  being  created  in  a 
state  of  such  entire  depravity  and  inability  as  to  need  such 
a  restoration  of  power.  They  ought  to  have  had  it  from 
the  outset ;  and  the  restoration  of  it  is  not  grace,  but  only  a 
partial  and  inadequate  compensation  for  the  original  wrong. 

The  same  reply  may  be  made  to  the  allegation  of  some 
high  churchmen,  that  God  is  justified  in  his  dealings  with 
men  through  Adam,  by  providing  for  them  the  opportunity 
of  baptismal  regeneration  in  infancy.  For,  according  to 
the  principles  of  equity  and  honor,  God  ought  not  to  have 
created  men  in  such  a  state  as  to  need  such  a  remedy, — 
even  if  it  were  one,  which  it  is  not.  Moreover,  this  alleged 
remedy  did  not  exist  till  the  days  of  Christ,  and  since  then 
has  been  inaccessible  by  the  majority  of  the  human  race. 

After  all,  in  every  one  of  these  cases,  and  in  all  equally, 
if  we  would  defend  God,  we  are  driven  back  to  the  problem 
which  I  have  already  considered  at  length. —  that  is,  to 
show  how  men  can  forfeit  their  original  rights,  as  new- 


OTHER    INEFFECTUAL   EFFORTS   FOR   RELIEF.         35*5 

created  minds,  before  they  are  born  into  this  world,  as  long 
as  a  real  personal  preexistence  and  real  sin  are  denied.  A 
necessity  of  solving  this  problem  lies  at  the  foundation  of 
all  these  systems  alike.  If  it  is,  as  I  have  endeavored  to 
show,  absurd  and  impossible,  then  no  modification  of  a  sys 
tem,  so  long  as  it  rests  on  such  an  alleged  forfeiture  as  its 
basis,  can  furnish  any  relief. 

Undoubtedly  the  motive  of  the  Romish  divines,  in  their 
doctrine  of  free  will,  was  to  vindicate  God  from  dishonor 
with  reference  to  the  origin  of  sin  and  the  ruin  of  man. 
This  Moehler  distinctly  affirms,  and  makes  prominent  in  his 
defence  of  their  theology.  So,  also,  no  one  who  has  read 
Wesley,  Fletcher  and  Watson,  can  doubt  that  the  Arinin- 
ians  aimed  at  the  same  end  in  their  doctrine  of  the  restora 
tion  of  ability  by  grace  and  conditional  predestination. 
But  the  difficulty  lay  too  deep  for  either  of  these  expedients 
to  reach.  It  is  not  peculiar  to  the  Lutheran,  to  the  Calvin- 
ist,  to  the  Romanist,  to  the  Arminian  or  to  the  Episcopa 
lian.  It  is  found  in  the  common  foundation  of  the  system 
of  each  and  all. 

After  laying  such  a  foundation,  the  evil  cannot  be  reme 
died  by  any  improved  mode  of  building  upon  it.  A  system 
based  on  injustice  cannot  be  so  developed  as  to  become  a 
just  system. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

ESTIMATE     OF    THE    CONFLICT. 

IN  my  introductory  remarks  I  made  the  following  state 
ments  :  "The  conflict  of  which  I  propose  to  write  is,  and 
ever  has  been,  in  its  deepest  recesses,  a  conflict  of  the  heart. 
Not  that  gigantic  intellectual  efforts  have  not  been  abun 
dantly  put  forth,  but  that  the  deepest  and  most  powerful 
impulses  have  ever  been  those  of  the  heart."  I  also 
remarked  that  "the  merely  logical  encounters  of  power 
fully  developed  intellectual  systems  tend  rather  to  irritation 
and  alienation  than  to  sympathy  and  confidence.  Never 
theless,  beneath  every  man's  intellectual  efforts  on  this 
subject  there  has  been  a  deeply  affecting  personal  expe 
rience,  which,  if  known,  would  show,  in  a  manner  adapted 
to  awaken  deep  sympathy,  why  he  has  reasoned  as  he  has. 
Indeed,  there  is  a  great  heart,  not  only  of  natural  honor, 
but,  still  more,  of  sanctified  humanity,  which,  from  begin 
ning  to  end,  underlies  this  momentous  controversy,  the 
deep  workings  of  which  must  be  developed  and  appreciated 
before  the  controversy  can  be  properly  understood.  No 
honorable  mind  can  see  these  workings  uncovered,  and  not 
be  touched  with  deep  emotion  in  viewing  the  struggles  of 
our  common  humanity,  in  endeavoring  to  resolve  the  deepest 
and  most  momentous  problems  of  the  present  trying  and 
mysterious  system."  I  also  declared  that  "  it -is  my  aim 
to  unfold  this  experience,  and  thus,  if  I  may,  to  create  on 


ESTIMATE   OF  THE   CONFLICT.  357 

all  sides  a  feeling  of  sympathy  and  mutual  interest,  by 
pointing  out  those  benevolent  and  honorable  impulses,  and 
that  regard  for  truth, —  mixed,  it  may  be,  with  other 
motives, —  by  which  the  various  parties  have  been  actuated, 
and  to  produce  a  candid  and  united  effort  to  eliminate  error, 
and  to  develop  the  whole  truth."  v^ 

To  some  extent  I  have  been  able,  in  the  general  survey 
which  I  have  now  completed,  to  unveil  the  workings  of  the 
hearts  of  our  fellow- Christians  of  different  ages,  from  the 
beginning.  My  chief  regret  has  been  that,  on  account  of 
my  narrow  limits,  I  have  not  been  able  to  do  it  more  fully. 
I  deeply  feel  the  importance  of  such  an  exhibition.  We 
are  too  prone  to  forget  that  all  redeemed  and  holy  men  of 
every  age  are  still  our  brethren,  and  one  with  us  in  Christ. 
We  are  too  prone  to  forget  their  circumstances  and  trials, 
and  the  real  and  great  works  which  they  have  performed, 
each  in  his  age,  for  God  and  for  man.  We  are  too  much 
inclined  to  think  of  their  works  as  collections  of  dry  and 
dead  dogmas,  forgetting  that  they  were  once  filled  with  the 
warm  emotions  of  living  hearts,  and  that  their  authors  still 
live,  and,  if  we  are  Christians,  still  love  us,  and  delight  to 
receive  from  us  fraternal  tributes  of  love  and  esteem. 

The  most  affecting  thought  to  my  mind,  in  making  this 
review,  has  been  that  God,  who  knows  all  truth,  should 
have  permitted  men  who  truly  loved  him  and  communed 
with  him  to  remain  involved  in  so  great  and  so  injurious 
errors.  But  facts  show  that  God  has  not  seen  fit  to  con 
nect  infallibility  with  eminent  piety.  Indeed,  had  he  done 
it,  he  must  have  entirely  changed  his  administration  of  this 
world.  The  mysterious  developments  of  this  system,  such 
as  the  great  apostasy,  and  the  long  reign  of  ecclesiastical 
despotism  and  of  brute  force,  could  not  have  taken  place  as 
they  have,  if  God  had  from  the  first  given  infallibility  to 


358  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

all  holy  men.  One  result  of  the  course  pursued  by  God 
has  been,  to  rebuke,  in  all  ages,  the  spirit  of  man-worship. 
Nevertheless,  He  has  never  designed  by  it  to  destroy  the 
spirit  of  brotherly  love  and  of  mutual  respect  among 
Christians  of  different  ages ;  and  the  time  will  come  when 
they  will  know,  love  and  respect  each  other,  as  they  have 
not  done  in  the  dark  ages  of  the  past  conflict.  It  will  be 
seen,  too,  that  the  final  end  and  highest  aim  of  this  great 
conflict  has  been  in  all  ages  simple  and  sublime. 

The  regeneration  of  man  has  been  the  practical  work  to 
be  done ;  but,  as  he  is  regenerated  for  God,  the  final  end 
and  highest  aim  has  been  to  find  a  full,  consistent,  and  per 
fect  view  of  a  glorious  God.  This  is  the  highest  necessity 
of  a  holy  mind.*  It  awakens  its  strongest  desires,  and  is 
essential  to  its  perfect  peace.  The  voice  of  every  holy  soul 
in  all  ages  has  been,  "0  God,  thou  art  my  God ;  early 
will  I  seek  thee ;  my  soul  thirsteth  for  thee ;  my  flesh  long- 
eth  for  thee,  in  a  dry  and  thirsty  land  where  no  water  is, 
for  thy  loving- kindness  is  better  than  life."  "With  thee 
is  the  fountain  of  life;  in  thy  light  shall  I  see  light." 
"  One  thing  have  I  desired,  that  will  I  seek  after,  that 
I  may  dwell  in  the  house  of  the  Lord  all  the  days  of  my 
life ;  that  I  may  behold  the  beauty  of  the  Lord,  and  inquire 
in  his  holy  temple." 

It  will  nevertheless  be  seen,  as  I  think,  that,  in  some 
way,  dark  clouds  have  been  made  to  arise  and  to  eclipse  the 
glories  of  God,  so  that  in  the  most  absolute  sense  it  has 
been  true  that,  logically  viewed,  he  has  dwelt  in  the  thick 
darkness.  Many  things  received  and  taught  and  defended 
concerning  him  by  the  best  of  men,  have  ascribed  to  him 
acts  more  at  war  with  the  fundamental  principles  of  equity 
and  honor  than  have  ever  been  imagined  or  performed  by 
the  most  unjust,  depraved  and  corrupt  of  created  minds. 


ESTIMATE    OF   THE    CONFLICT.  359 

Nothing,  in  fact,  can  be  conceived  of  which  is  more  dishon 
orable  and  unjust  than  the  deeds  which  have  been  ascribed 
to  God,  and  made  the  basis  of  the  whole  work  of  redemp 
tion, —  that  greatest  of  all  his  works. 

It  is  no  doubt  true  that  this  has  always  been  done  uncon 
sciously  and  unintentionally.  No  Christian  divine  has  ev^r 
for  a  moment  admitted  that  the  real  reigning  God  of  the 
universe  ever  has,  in  fact,  ceased  to  make  honor  and  right 
the  foundation  of  his  throne ;  yet  it  is  nevertheless  true 
that  systems  of  theology  have  been  framed  which,  in  reality, 
have  represented  him  as  so  doing,  and  that  these  systems 
have  been  supposed  to  be  based  upon  the  explicit  state 
ments  of  God.  These  statements  have  sometimes  been 
received  as  the  decisions  of  an  infallible  church  as  to  the 
sense  of  the  Bible ;  at  others,  as  the  opinions  of  the  great 
body  of  believers,  in  all  ages,  as  to  that  sense. 

These  are  the  things  which,  in  fact,  have  been  done; 
and,  under  the  influence  of  such  systems,  honorable  and 
ingenuous  minds  have  been,  and  still  are,  liable  to  be 
exposed  to  an  inconceivable  amount  of  suffering.  Fearing 
to  call  in  question  what  is  regarded  as  sustained  by  the 
assertion  of  God,  or  is  believed  by  an  infallible  church,  or 
by  the  great  body  of  Christians, —  prevented  by  Christian 
consciousness  from  taking  refuge  in  infidelity,  and  yet 
unable  to  exterminate  the  principles  of  honor  and  right 
implanted  by  God  in  their  souls, —  they  cannot  see  around 
them  anything  but  a  universe  of  terror  and  gloom,  in  tho 
lurid  light  of  which  a  just  and  honorable  God  cannot  be 
seen,  and  in  which  the  soul  faints,  and  it  seems  better  to 
die  than  to  live. 

Others  may  have  defended  themselves  against  coming 
into  such  a  state,  by  entirely  suspending  the  exercise  of  the 
logical  power,  from  respect  to  the  supposed  statements  of 


3C)0  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

God,  or  from  a  regard  to  the  decisions  of  a  church  supposed 
to  be  infallible,  or  to  the  opinions  of  the  main  body  of 
Christians  in  all  ages.  Of  the  truth  of  the  great  features 
of  the  system  they  are  assured;  and,  if  they  meet  with 
positive  contradictions  of  fundamental  principles  of  equity 
and  honor,  they  will  not  look  into  them.  Thus,  to  use  a 
metaphor,  though  by  faith  they  swallow  them,  still  they 
do  not  logically  digest  them,  and  thus  the  poison  does  not 
directly  enter  into  their  mental  circulation. 

But  with  an  increasing  number  of  minds  such  a  course 
will  not  always  be  possible.  This  is  especially  likely  to  be 
true  of  those  who  have  been  disciplined  in  the  higher 
departments  of  a  properly  conducted  system  of  education, 
and  yet  have  a  deep  Christian  experience.  One  great  end 
of  a  true  education  is  to  discipline  the  mind  for  the  candid 
and  unprejudiced  pursuit  of  truth.  It  teaches  the  honest 
Christian  to  renounce  all  pious  fraud,  and  not  to  think  that 
it  can  ever  be  for  God's  glory  that  we  should  lie  for  him. 
Moreover,  it  teaches  that  it  is  for  the  interest  of  all  to  know 
the  truth,  and  that  it  is  a  duty  to  be  faithful  to  it  at  any 
sacrifice  of  reputation  or  property,  or  personal  ease  and 
enjoyment.  It  also  recognizes  the  truth  which  is  taught 
by  the  structure  of  the  human  mind,  by  the  material  uni 
verse,  and  by  providence,  as  a  part  of  the  revelation  which 
God  has  made  to  man  as  really  as  the  Bible,  and  does  not 
feel  at  liberty  to  suppress  any  truth  taught  by  God.  The 
future,  at  least,  will  develop  the  result  of  such  views. 

But,  even  if  education  has  not  been  in  all  past  ages  such 
as  it  ought  to  be, —  and  we  do  not  pretend  that  it  has, — 
still,  even  when  imperfectly  developed,  its  higher  grades 
have  naturally  tended  to  produce  free  thought,  and  to  give 
power  to  that  thought.  But  it  has  ever  led  to  peculiar 
trials ;  for,  since  the  mind  is  limited  and  wakes  up  in  this 


ESTIMATE    OF   THE    CONFLICT.  361 

world  under  the  influence  of  the  opinions  of  the  existing 
generation,  and  the  system  of  God  is  vast  and  manifold  in 
its  relations,  it  is  extremely  difficult  and  laborious  for  a 
single  mind  so  to  grasp  and  comprehend  it  as  to  study  out 
and  adjust  all  its  parts,  relations  and  bearings.  And  if  it 
has  had  elements  wrought  into  it  that  bring  one  part  of  it 
into  conflict  with  another,  and  these  remain  undiscovered, 
then  the  logical  tendencies  of  different  minds  will  impel 
them  in  different  directions,  according  as  circumstances 
or  the  constitutional  temperament  fix  the  attention  on  one 
part  or  another  of  the  system.  Those  who  feel  deeply  one 
part  of  the  system  try  to  carry  that  out  logically.  Others, 
who  feel  another  part,  try  to  do  the  same  with  that.  Hence 
arises  at  once  the  tendency,  already  illustrated,  of  one  part 
of  the  system  to  destroy  another,  to  which  it  has  been  put 
in  opposition.  Hence  divisions  arise,  and  extreme  parties 
are  formed, —  each  urging  one  part  of  the  system  so  far  as 
to  destroy  another.  In  view  of  these  conflicts  intermediate 
parties  arise,  each  trying  to  retain  both  of  the  opposing 
parts  of  the  system,  but  differing  in  the  modes  in  which 
they  endeavor  to  harmonize  and  adjust  them ;  but  all  alike 
failing  in  the  effort. 

Nevertheless,  on  the  scale  of  ages,  the  principles  of  honor 
and  right  will  finally  predominate  and  have  the  advantage, 
whatever  may  be  the  purposes  or  wishes  of  those  who  hold 
the  system ;  and  if,  by  any  false  theory,  they  have  been  put 
in  opposition  to  any  fundamental  facts  of  the  system,  either 
those  facts  will  be  generally  dropped,  or  they  will  be  so  mod 
ified  as  to  lose  their  real  nature  and  import,  or  else  the  false 
theory  will  be  repudiated  by  which  the  opposition  has  been 
produced. 

Now,  all  the  wide  field  of  history  which  I  have  sketched 
is  but  a  collection  of  instructive  illustrations  of  these  tenden- 


362  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

cies  of  the  mind  under  the  common  system ;  and,  after  ages 
of  conflict,  the  time  seems  to  be  drawing  near  in  which  one  or 
the  other  of  the  last-mentioned  results  must  be  anticipated. 
Either  the  principles  of  honor  and  right  will  generally 
destroy  or  render  unmeaning  the  great  facts  as  to  the  ruin  of 
man,  or  else  that  theory  will  be  renounced  by  which  those 
principles  have  been  arrayed  in  opposition  to  these  facts. 

Thus  have  the  reality  of  the  alleged  conflict,  its  causes, 
and  a  possible  remedy,  been  considered,  and  the  importance 
of  its  speedy  application.  The  final  question  now  arises, 
Shall  the  theory  of  a  previous  existence  be  received  as  true  ? 

In  answer  to  this  three  things  have  been  said :  There  is 
no  evidence  of  its  truth  ;  it  merely  shifts  the  difficulty,  but 
does  not  remove  it ;  and  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  word  of 
God.  These  allegations  I  shall  consider  in  the  following 
book 


BOOK  V. 

THE  ARGUMENT. 


CHAPTER    I. 

THE   MODE   OF   PROCEEDING. 

WHEN  it  is  asserted,  as  has  been  stated,  that  the  doc 
trine  of  preexistence  —  to  which  I  have  resorted  as  alone 
effectual  to  harmonize  the  conflicting  powers  of  Chris 
tianity  —  is  a  mere  theory  not  sustained  by  any  proof,  the 
question  naturally  arises,  What  is  meant  by  this  assertion  ? 
Is  it  that  it  is  nowhere  in  express  terms  asserted  in  the 
Scriptures  ?  The  truth  of  this  assertion  I  have  conceded  ; 
for  I  have  only  assumed  "that  God  has  so  presented  to  us 
this  system,  taken  as  a  whole,  that  by  a  careful  study  of 
it  we  may  learn  the  great  law  of  its  harmonious  action  ;  and 
that  the  Bible  has  said  nothing  designed  to  foreclose  this 
mode  of  inquiry,  or  to  confine  us,  by  express  verbal  revela 
tion,  to  any  particular  theory  on  the  subject."  (Book  in. 
ch.  2,  p.  198.) 

If,  however,  any  one  is  disposed  to  call  in  question  the 
validity  of  this  mode  of  reasoning,  I  would  simply  ask  him, 
Have  texts  of  scripture  any  authority  before  you  have 


304  CONFLICT  OF  AGES. 

proved  that  there  is  a  God,  and  that  the  Bible  is  his 
inspired  word  ? 

If  not,  then  you  must  prove  those  fundamental  truths,  — 
the  being  of  a  God,  and  the  divine  origin  and  inspiration 
of  the  Bible, —  by  the  kind  of  reasoning  which  I  propose  to 
use  to  prove  preexistence ;  that  is,  reasoning  from  divinely 
implanted  intellectual  and  moral  intuitions,  and  from  the 
facts  of  .the  system.  If,  therefore,  this  mode  of  reasoning 
is  sufficiently  valid  to  be  the  original  basis  of  all  religion, 
is  it  not  also  valid  enough  to  sustain  the  doctrine  of  pre 
existence?  Moreover,  by  what  other  mode  of  reasoning 
can  the  truth  of  the  Newtonian  theory  be  proved  ?  But  I 
shall  say  more  upon  this  point  in  another  place. 

But,  if  any  one  shall  concede  the  validity  of  the  mode 
of  reasoning,  but  shall  assert  that  by  it  nothing  can  be 
proved  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  of  preexistence,  then  I 
reply  that  this  is  a  mere  gratuitous  assertion,  and  no  argu 
ment.  Before  conceding  any  weight  to  such  an  assertion, 
it  is  at  least  expedient  first  to  hear  the  arguments  which 
this  mode  of  reasoning  will  furnish  in  favor  of  the  doctrine 
in  question. 

The  same  reply  may  be  made  to  the  allegation  that  it 
merely  shifts  the  difficulty,  but  does  not  remove  it.  This, 
also,  is  an  unproved  assertion ;  and  it  would  be  well,  before 
giving  any  credit  to  it,  to  consider  carefully  and  thoroughly 
and  to  weigh  well  the  true  and  logical  bearings  of  preexist 
ence  on  the  difficulties  of  the  system. 

But,  before  proceeding  to  consider  either  of  these  main 
points,  it  is  indispensable  at  the  outset  to  meet  the  third 
assertion, —  that  the  doctrine  of  preexistence  is  opposed  to 
the  statements  of  the  inspired  volume. 

It  is  natural  and  proper,  in  view  of  such  an  assertion,  to 
ask,  What  are  those  statements  ?  Are  they  those  which 


THE   MODE    OF    PROCEEDING.  365 

teach  merely  the  fact  that  men  are  born  depraved,  and  are 
by  nature  the  children  of  wrath  ?  Certainly  these  do  not 
deny  or  disprove  preexistence.  For,  if  men  preexisted  and 
fell  before  they  entered  this  world,  it  would  of  course  result 
in  these  very  facts.  Therefore,  when  the  Bible  asserts  the 
existence  of  these  facts,  it  does  not  deny  preexistence.  Nay, 
more,  so  far  as  preexistence  accounts  for  these  facts,  in  con 
sistency  with  the  character  of  God,  better  than  any  other 
system,  so  far  does  the  statement  of  them  in  the  Bible  cre 
ate  a  presumption  of  its  truth.  The  same  also  is  true  as  to 
the  inspired  statements  of  the  magnitude  and  totality  of 
human  depravity. 

To  disprove  preexistence  from  the  Bible,  then,  it  is 
necessary  to  produce  not  merely  texts  to  prove  native 
depravity,  and  its  development  in  a  life  entirely  sinful,  but 
also  passages  that  shall  particularly  state  that  these  facts 
originated  in  this  world,  and  not  in  a  previous  state  of 
existence. 

To  meet  this  point,  there  is,  so  far  as  I  know,  but  one 
passage  on  which  any  general  reliance  is  placed ;  but  still 
that  one  is  enough,  if  it  really  does  meet  and  decide  the 
point.  That  one  passage  is  the  celebrated  comparison  of 
Adam  and  Christ,  which  occurs  in  verses  12 — 21  of  the 
fifth  chapter  of  the  epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Romans. 

I  need  not  say  of  this  that  it  has  been  in  all  ages  and 
still  is  relied  on  by  many  eminent  Christians,  as  proving 
that  the  sinfulness  of  the  human  race  was  caused  by  the  sin 
of  Adam,  either  by  imputation,  or  by  natural  causation,  or 
through  divine  efficiency,  or  in  some  other  way.  But,  if  so, 
then,  of  course,  it  was  not  caused  by  a  fall  in  a  preexistcnt 
state. 

It  is  necessary,  therefore,  before  proceeding  to  any  gen 
eral  course  of  reasoning,  first  to  inquire  what  is  the  true 
31* 


366  CONFLICT    OF    AGES. 

import  of  this  celebrated  passage.  Indeed,  I  think  that 
practically  the  whole  of  the  present  discussion  turns  more 
upon  this  than  upon  any  other  point.  For,  if  it  had  not 
been  for  the  belief  that  this  chapter  proves  such  a  doctrine 
of  forfeiture  as  I  have  considered, —  a  doctrine  that 
appears  impossible  and  unjust, —  it  could  never  have  gained 
credence,  or  sustained  itself  for  a  single  hour ;  nor  would 
it  have  ever  been  believed  that  the  sin  of  Adam  could 
or  did  in  any  way  produce  the  terrific  depravity  which 
has  been  exhibited  in  this  world  ever  since  his  creation 
and  fall. 

But  so  long  as  it  has  been  supposed  that  God  has  asserted 
these  things,  it  has  been  felt  to  be  a  duty  to  overrule  even 
those  intuitive  moral  and  intellectual  convictions  which  He 
has  implanted  in  the  soul,  rather  than  to  distrust  his  word. 
Much  as  I  respect  the  spirit  of  faith  and  of  submission  to 
God  from  which  this  course  of  conduct  has  proceeded,  still 
I  cannot  but  lament  that  the  proper  laws  of  interpreting 
such  a  passage  had  not  been  more  thoroughly  studied  before 
coming  to  such  painful  and  injurious  results. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  from  what  has  been  said,  that  the 
proper  interpretation  of  this  passage  is  the  first  point  which 
demands  our  attention. 

It  is  plain,  also,  that  this  is  a  point  of  peculiar  moment, 
since  the  whole  scriptural  question  depends,  in  fact,  upon 
this  text.  If  this  fails  to  sustain  the  common  opinion,  there 
is  no  other.  This  will  probably  strike  some  with  surprise. 
They  have  been  wont  to  regard  the  Bible  as  full  of  proof 
of  the  fall  in  Adam.  The  reason  is,  that  they  have 
regarded  all  proof  of  native  depravity  and  the  fallen  con 
dition  of  the  race  as  virtually  proof  of  the  fall  of  the  race 
in  Adam.  It  is,  however,  as  we  have  said,  no  proof  at  all 
of  this  point.  It  is  proof  of  a  fall  at  some  time,  but 


THE   MODE    OF   PROCEEDING.  367 

whether  in  Adam  or  before  Adam  it  does  not  decide.  It 
suits  alike  either  hypothesis.  Let  us,  then,  come  to  the 
solitary  passage  on  which  the  common  doctrine  is  wholly- 
based,—  Rom.  5  :  12—19. 

If  it  shall  appear  that  no  valid  argument  can  be  derived 
from  this  passage  against  the  doctrine  of  preexistence,  then 
the  way  will  be  fully  prepared  to  take  up  and  to  develop 
the  general  argument  for  that  doctrine,  on  the  principles 
which  have  been  already  stated ;  and  also  to  answer  such 
objections  as  have  been  alleged  against  it  in  those  super 
ficial  discussions  of  it  to  which  I  have  previously  referred. 


CHAPTER  II. 

GENERAL  VIEW  OF  THE  VARIOUS  INTER 
PRETATIONS  OF  ROM.  5:  12—19. 

No  other  passage  of  scripture  can  be  mentioned,  the  inter 
pretation  of  which  has  so  seriously  affected  the  human  race. 
Indeed,  from  the  magnitude  and  universality  of  its  effects, 
an  aspect  of  sublimity  must  ever  invest  it  to  the  thoughtful 
mind. 

From  age  to  age,  the  millions  of  a  depraved  race  had 
filled  this  world  in  successive  generations.  At  length  a 
great  Redeemer  came.  He  came  to  redeem  a  church,  to 
destroy  the  kingdom  and  works  of  Satan,  and  to  reorganize 
the  universe  of  God.  But  whence  originated  the  evil  which 
he  came  to  remedy  1  What  was  it  that  plunged  the  human 
race  in  ruins?  What  caused  the  infinite  emergency  to 
meet  which  none  was  adequate  in  the  wide  universe  but  an 
incarnate  God  ? 

Questions  these  full  of  interest  to  all  worlds,  but  above 
all  to  us ;  for  we  are  the  race  from  which  the  church  is  to  be 
redeemed,  and  all  of  our  race  not  included  in  this  redemp 
tion  are  to  perish  forever. 

Need  we  wonder,  then,  that  theologians  and  poets,  phi 
losophers  and  kings,  as  well  as  unlettered  men  in  all  the 
walks  of  common  life,  have  listened  with  deep  interest  to 
these  teachings  of  the  apostle ;  that  Milton,  in  his  immortal 


VIEW    OF   INTERPRETATIONS.  369 

epic,  designed  to  justify  the  ways  of  God  to  man,  should  make 
it  the  burden  of  his  song ;  that  learned  expositors  and  divines 
should  expend  volumes  on  it ;  that  it  should  become  the  basis 
of  systems  of  theology,  sermons,  catechisms  and  hymns ;  that 
it  should  tinge  all  the  scenes  of  domestic  life,  rise  before  the 
mind  in  the  sacred  hour  of  marriage,  or  as  any  new-born 
heir  of  immortality  enters  the  world,  or  as  death  closes  the 
scene ;  —  in  short,  that  it  should  lie  at  the  basis  of  all 
religious  thought  and  emotion  in  the  evangelical  Christian 
world? 

Are  not,  then,  the  moral  aspects  of  the  interpretation  of 
this  passage  truly  sublime  ?  Has  it  not  given  character  to 
the  intellectual  and  moral  atmosphere  into  which  each  suc 
cessive  generation  is  born,  in  wThich  their  powers  are  un 
folded,  and  under  the  influence  of  which  their  eternity  is 
decided  ?  And,  if  it  is  much  to  shape  one  ingenuous  youth 
ful  mind,  like  that  of  Bacon,  Burke,  Milton,  or  Wash 
ington,  in  which  are  the  elements  of  all  that  can  affect  and 
interest  our  deepest  sympathies,  how  much  more  so,  to 
shape  the  minds  of  all  such  for  eighteen  long  centuries, — 
to  take  whole  generations  of  minds,  of  all  grades  and  in  all 
ranks,  and  mould  them  from  the  cradle  to  the  grave  ? 

But,  if  these  things  are  so,  need  I  say,  what  every  one 
must  see  and  feel  without  my  saying  it,  how  unspeakable 
and  inconceivable  is  the  importance  of  a  right  interpretation 
of  such  a  passage  ? 

What,  then,  is  the  fundamental  idea  of  the  common  inter 
pretation?  It  presupposes  that  this  is  our  first  state  of 
existence,  and  that  the  guilt  and  depravity  of  man  are  not 
the  result  of  a  fall  in  a  previous  state  of  existence,  but  are 
in  some  way  the  result  of  the  first  sin  of  Adam. 

Various  have  been  the  attempts  to  unfold  the  mode  in 
which  this  alleged  fall  in  or  through  him  took  place.  Some 


370  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

teach  that,  in  some  mysterious  way,  we  existed  in  Adam, 
were  one  with  him,  sinned  in  him  and  fell  with  him,  and 
thus  corrupted  the  common  generic  nature  of  the -race,  and 
that  hence  natural  death  and  a  depraved  nature  descend 
through  physical  generation ;  and  that  all  men  being  born 
in  fact  sinners,  and  with  corrupted  natures,  are  under  the 
wrath  of  God  ;  and  that  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin  is  imputed 
to  them,  because  it  is  truly  and  properly  theirs. 

Others  deny  any  mysterious  unity  with  Adam  before  we 
were  born,  and  our  actual  commission  of  his  first  sin,  but 
say  that,  as  Adam  was  our  natural  and  federal  head,  God 
imputes  bis  sin  to  us,  and  thus  makes  it  really  ours,  though 
not  personally ;  or  else  that,  by  a  divine  judicial  constitution, 
he  regards  it  as  ours,  though  it  is  not,  and  holds  us  liable 
to  punishment  for  it,  independently  of  and  before  our  own 
acts ;  and  that,  on  one  of  these  grounds,  as  a  punishment 
of  that  sin,  we  forfeit  his  favor,  and  that  accordingly  he 
withdraws  from  us  divine  supernatural  influences,  so  that 
we  are  born  devoid  of  original  righteousness,  and,  as  a 
necessary  result,  with  natures  corrupt  and  sinful,  anterior 
to  choice  or  action,  and  leading  to  actual  sin,  and  deserving 
of  eternal  death. 

Others  do  not  retain  the  doctrine  of  imputation  at  all, 
and  yet  believe  that  the  ruinous  consequences  of  Adam's  sin 
do  come  upon  us ;  and  that,  on  account  of  it,  we  are  born 
with  depraved  natures  before  choice  or  action,  which  are 
properly  sinful. 

Others,  denying  a  depraved  nature  anterior  to  choice, 
and  holding  that  all  sin  is  voluntary,  ascribe  to  a  stated 
exercise  of  divine  efficiency  the  fact  that  all  men  sin. 

Others  only  affirm  that  our  natures  have  been  so  changed, 
in  consequence  of  Adam's  fall,  that  in  all  the  appropriate 
circumstances  of  our  being  in  this  world  we  sin  as  soon  as 


VIEW    OF   INTERPRETATIONS.  371 

moral  agency  commences ;  and,  although  the  mere  nature 
of  man  before  volition  cannot  be  strictly  sinful,  yet,  in  a 
popular  sense,  it  may  be  called  corrupt,  depraved  and 
sinful, —  that  is,  always  leading  to  sin. 

Augustine,  as  we  have  seen,  originally  developed  the  first 
view,  and  the  others  are  different  stages  of  recession  from  it, 
caused  by  the  pressure  of  arguments  derived  from  the  prin 
ciples  of  honor  and  right,  and  the  character  of  God.  But 
still,  all  have  one  idea  in  common, —  that  our  original  guilt 
and  sinfulness  were  not  caused  by  our  own  action  in  another 
state  of  being,  but  by  the  sin  of  Adam. 

The  interpretation  of  Augustine  rested  very  much  on  the 
false  translation  of  verse  12  in  the  Latin  Vulgate,  "  in  quo 
omnes  peccaverunt,"  which  means  "in  whom  all  sinned,'5 
instead  of  "for  that  (or  because)  all  sinned."  Hence 
he  often  says,  that  all  men  were  one  in  Adam,  and  that 
Adam,  though  one,  was  all  men.  His  philosophical  notions, 
according  to  Neander,  Hagenbach  and  others,  also  favored 
this  view.  His  realistic  mode  of  thinking,  as  Hagenbach 
alleges,  led  him  to  confound  the  abstract  with  the  concrete, 
and  so  to  consider  the  human  race  as  originally  a  concrete 
totality,  in  which  the  individuals  were  merged,  instead  of  a 
mere  collection  of  distinct  and  successive  individuals,  repre 
sented  by  a  generic  term. 

This  interpretation  was  to  some  extent  held  during  the 
Middle  Ages,  and  by  some  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation, 
and  even  since  then,  it  has  been  defended.  So  long  as  it 
was  supposed  to  rest  on  the  testimony  of  revelation,  its 
advocates  could  repel  any  protest  of  reason  on  the  grounds 
of  faith  and  mystery.  And  it  is  instructive  to  notice  how 
wide  may  be  the  influence  of  a  wrong  translation  or  exposi 
tion  of  even  one  word  of  the  inspired  oracles ;  and  therefore 
it  is  well  for  all  to  feel  the  responsibility,  even  at  this  day 
of  translating  or  expounding  a  passage  like  this. 


372  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

The  second  exposition,  or  that  of  those  who  derive  the 
doctrine  of  imputation  from  this  passage,  is  distinguished 
by  this  peculiarity,  that  it  denies  absolutely  and  unequivo 
cally  that  the  apostle  here  asserts  that  men  became  actual 
sinners,  or  even  received  a  depraved  nature  through  the  sin 
of  Adam.  Not  only,  say  they,  the  passage  does  not  teach 
this,  but  it  is  entirely  against  its  scope  and  main  end.  It 
teaches  simply  that,  as  all  men  were  condemned  to  death  for 
Adam's  sin,  so  all  who  belong  by  faith  to  Christ  were  jus 
tified  by  Christ's  righteousness.  By  death,  they  under 
stand  penal  evils  of  all  kinds.  They  hold,  indeed,  that 
human  depravity  resulted  from  this  condemnation,  since 
God  forsook  the  condemned  race,  and  took  away  his  Spirit, 
and  depravity  followed  of  course.  But  all  that  the  passage 
directly  teaches  is  the  condemnation  of  all  for  the  sin  of 
Adam,  and  the  justification  of  believers  for  Christ's  sake. 
The  sense  is  altogether  judicial.  This  is  at  present  the 
proper  Old  School  view. 

The  New  School  divines,  on  the  other  hand,  consider  the 
passage  as  teaching  not  that  all  men  were  condemned  for 
Adam's  act,  but  that  they  all  became  sinners  in  consequence 
of  it  in  some  way,  without  defining  alike  in  what  way  it 
was.  For  saying  this,  they  are  charged  by  their  Old  School 
brethren  with  overlooking  the  entire  scope,  end  and  aim,  of 
the  passage. 

There  was  originally,  and  for  four  centuries,  still  another 
view  of  this  passage;  that  of  the  Greek  church,  which 
regarded  the  death  spoken  of  in  it  as  merely  natural  death. 
Before  Tertullian  and  Augustine,  this  was  also  the  view  of 
the  Latin  church.  Irenseus,  the  great  opponent  of  heretics, 
knew  nothing  of  anything  but  physical  death  in  this  pas 
sage.  In  favor  of  this  view  the  authority  of  the  Greek 
fathers  is  uniform  and  unbroken.  Muenscher  gives  passages 


VIEW    OF    INTERPRETATIONS.  373 

in  proof  of  this  statement,  from  Justin  Martyr.  Athena- 
goras,  Tatian.  Theophilus  Antioch.,  Clemens  Alex., 
Origen,  Athanasius,  Chrysostom,  Cyrill  Hierosol.,  Titus  of 
Bostra,  Basil  the  Great,  Gregory  Naz.,  Gregory  Nyss., 
Nemesius,  Epiphanius.  Moreover,  it  is  remarkable  that 
Pelagius  took  the  lead  in  denying  this  position,  and  in 
defending  the  doctrine  that  the  death  here  spoken  of  was 
spiritual  death. 

In  John  of  Damascus,  who,  at  a  subsequent  date,  gave 
form  to  the  theology  of  the  Greek  church,  the  early  doctrine 
of  that  church  reappears ;  and  still  later  Greek  writers,  as 
Theodoras  Studaita,  Theophylact  and  Euthymius  Ziga- 
benus,  repeat  it.  They  all  teach  that  Adam's  sin  brought 
natural  death  on  his  posterity,  but  do  not  teach  the  propa 
gation  of  a  depraved  nature,  nor  any  connate  guilt  of 
Adam's  sin.  Indeed,  as  we  have  seen,  earlier  fathers 
explained  the  fact  that  men  do  uniformly  sin,  rather  by  the 
influence  of  evil  spirits,  than  by  a  reference  to  the  fall  of 
Adam.  Some,  however,  admitted  that  the  moral  faculties 
of  man  had  been  weakened  by  the  fall ;  but  none  thought 
of  denying  the  free  will  of  man,  and  the  voluntary  nature 
of  all  sin.  Cyrill  of  Jerusalem,  according  to  Hagenbach, 
as  we  have  seen,  regarded  men  as  born  in  a  state  of  inno 
cence,  and  that  a  free  agent  alone  can  sin.  Ephraim  the 
Syrian,  Gregory  of  Nyssa  and  Basil  the  Great,  take  the 
same  view.  Chrysostom  most  earnestly  advocated  the 
liberty  of  man  and  his  power  of  moral  self-determination, 
and  severely  censured  all  who  endeavored  to  excuse  their 
own  immoralities  by  ascribing  the  origin  of  their  sin  to  the 
fall  of  Adam. 

From   this   general  view  of  the    interpretation    of  this 
passage,  one  thing  is  plain, — that  no  one  exposition,  ancient 
or  modern,  can  claim  the  sanction  of  universal  authority. 
32 


CHAPTER   III. 

THE    TRUE    INTERPRETATION      OF    ROM.    5:  12—19. 

WE  have  considered  some  of  the  various  modes  in  which 
this  passage  has  been  interpreted. 

I  shall  next  proceed  to  state  what  appears  to  me  to  be 
the  true  interpretation. 

In  my  opinion,  then,  the  interpretations  of  the  Old 
School  party  and  of  the  Greek  church  contain  each  an 
element  of  the  true  interpretation,  to  which  must  be  added  a 
third,  found  in  neither,  in  order  to  combine  all  the  parts  of 
the  true  system. 

The  element  of  truth  in  the  Old  School  system  is,  that 
the  sense  of  the  passage  is  judicial,  relating  to  condemna 
tion  and  justification,  and  not  to  the  causation  of  sin  or 
holiness  in  the  race. 

The  element  of  truth  in  the  Greek  system  is,  that  the 
death  spoken  of  is  simply  natural  death. 

The  element  to  be  added,  however,  is  one  of  more  import 
ance  than  either  of  the  preceding,  and  must  control  the 
whole  interpretation  of  the  passage. 

It  is  this, — that  all  the  language,  in  this  passage,  which  is 
commonly  understood  to  assert  that  the  sin  of  Adam  exerted 
a  causative  power  upon  the  condition  and  character  of  his 
descendants,  need  not  be  understood  to  denote  real  causa- 


THE    TRUE    INTERPRETATION.  875 

tion,  but  may,  if  any  good  reason  calls  for  it,  be  held  to 
denote  or.ly  apparent  causation ;  and  that  a  good  reason  does 
call  for  this  view ;  and  moreover  that  such  a  sequence  of 
apparent  causation  was  established  solely  in  order  to  make 
Adam  a  type  of  Christ. 

The  passage,  then,  thus  viewed,  teaches  that  God  was 
pleased  to  establish  immediately  on  the  sin  of  Adam,  and 
through  that  sin.  the  sequence  of  condemnation  to  natural 
death  upon  all  men ;  a  sequence  linked  to  Adam's  act  by 
no  causative  power,  but  established  solely  as  a  type  and 
illustration,  both  by  similitude  and  antithesis,  of  the 
sequence  of  justification  and  life  eternal  from  the  obedience 
of  Christ. —  a  sequence  in  which  there  is  a  real  and 
glorious  causative  power. 

Such  a  sequence,  in  itself  devoid  of  causative  power,  but 
established  for  typical  purposes,  I  call  a  merely  typical 
sequence.  It  is  one  not  founded  in  the  nature  of  things, 
but  in  a  positive  arrangement,  designed  for  typical  effect. 

To  illustrate  my  idea.  When  an  Israelite,  bitten  by  a 
fiery  serpent,  in  accordance  with  the  word  of  God,  looked 
up  at  the  brazen  serpent  erected  by  Moses  on  a  pole,  he 
was  immediately  healed.  Here,  then,  was  a  fixed  sequence 
established  by  God.  And  yet  all  admit  that  there  was  in 
the  brazen  serpent  no  healing  power.  It  was  then  a 
sequence  of  apparent  causation,  and  not  of  real  causation. 
But  God  was  pleased  to  establish  it  for  typical  purposes,  to 
illustrate  the  healing  of  the  soul,  mortally  wounded  by  sin, 
that  follows  looking  by  faith  to  Christ. 

Here,  then,  is  a  case  of  a  merely  typical  sequence. 
There  is  apparent  causation,  but  no  real  causation ;  and  the 
sequence  is  established  to  typify  another,  in  which  there  is  a 
real  and  glorious  causative  power. 

In  like  manner,  that  the  sequence  of  condemnation   and 


376  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

death  coming  on  all  men  through  the  sin  of  Adam  was  a 
merely  typical  sequence,  established  to  illustrate  a  causative 
sequence  of  justification  and  spiritual  life  through  Christ, 
is  the  position  which  I  lay  down  as  the  key  of  this  whole 


So  important  a  position  will,  of  course,  demand  a  radical 
investigation.  Such  an  investigation  will  require  us  to 
consider  two  questions  : 

1.  Is  the  sequence  in  this  case,  whatever  it  may  be,  one 
merely  typical  ? 

2.  What  is  the  sequence  ? 

Of  these  two.  the  first,  as  we  have  said,  is  the  funda 
mental  question.  Certain  things  are,  in  this  passage,  said  to 
have  been  done  by  or  through  one  man.  What  they  are,  as 
we  have  seen,  is  not  agreed.  Some  say  that  by  him  natu 
ral  death  came  on  all  men.  Others,  that  penal  retributions 
in  general  came  on  all  men.  Others,  that  universal  sinful- 
ness  came  on  all  men. 

Now,  without  at  present  deciding  which  of  these  sequences 
is  meant  in  the  passage,  I  will  merely  assume  that  a 
sequence  is  meant  of  some  sort,  and  ask  is  it,  or  is  it  not,  a 
sequence  of  real  causation  7 

To  this  I  have  replied  that  it  is  not,  by  any  necessity  of 
the  case.  I  admit  that  the  language  used  to  denote  actual 
causation  is  used.  So  far  as  the  mere  words  are  concerned, 
they  may  bear  that  sense.  But  there  is  no  necessity  of  it. 
It  is  equally  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  language  and 
the  usages  of  scripture  to  suppose  that  the  sequence  is  one 
of  merely  apparent  causation :  so  that  the  sin  of  Adam,  in 
fact,  exerted  no  influence  whatever  on  his  race,  but  it  and 
its  sequences  were  merely  ordered  so  to  stand  in  relation  to 
each  other  as  to  make,  at  the  very  introduction  of  the 
human  race  into  this  world,  a  striking  type  of  the  coming 


THE    TRUE    INTERPRETATION.  377 

Messiah,  by  whom  the  race  was  to  be  redeemed.  On  this 
latter  supposition,  the  fallen  condition  and  depravity  of  the 
race  are  assumed  as  having  been  already  in  existence,  and 
the  doctrine  is  that  the  events  connected  with  the  introduc 
tion  of  the  race  into  this  world  by  one  man  were  such  as  tc 
form  a  type  of  the  relations  and  acts  of  the  coming  Messiah 
in  redeeming  the  church. 

Those  interpretations  which  assume  a  causative  sequence 
make  the  sin  of  Adam  really  to  cause  either  natural  death, 
or  condemnation,  or  depravity  to  all  the  race,  and  so  to  do 
it  as  to  be  a  type  of  the  coming  Messiah. 

The  interpretation  which  I  propose  makes  it  a  divinely- 
established  antecedent,  without  causative  power,  but  de 
signed  to  make  in  the  opening  scene  of  this  world's  history 
a  sublime,  impressive  and  beautiful  type  of  the  coming 
Messiah.  The  truth  of  this  view,  as  I  have  said,  is  the 
fundamental  question  of  the  whole  discussion.  It  is  also  a 
question  the  importance  of  which  cannot  be  over-estimated. 
It  is  also  a  question,  so  far  as  I  know,  never  thus  raised  or 
discussed  before.  It  has  been  generally  assumed  that, 
whatever  it  is  that  followed  the  act  of  Adam,  it  was  linked 
to  it  by  the  power  of  a  real  causation.  No  one  seems  to 
have  thought  that  any  law  of  language,  or  any  usage  of 
scripture,  gave  us  our  choice  here  between  real  and  apparent 
causation.  All  seem  to  have  felt  themselves  shut  up  to  one 
mode  of  understanding  the  language  of  causation  here  used. 

However  great,  therefore,  might  be  the  objections  from 
the  nature  of  things,  or  from  the  principles  of  honor  and 
right,  to  such  an  understanding,  it  has  been  felt  that  we 
have  no  right  to  give  them  any  weight  in  opposition  to  the 
express  statements  of  God. 

It  is  my  purpose,  therefore,  to  show  that  the  laws  of  lan 
guage  and  the  usages  of  scripture  do  not  shut  us  up  to  such 
32* 


878  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

a  mode  of  interpretation ;  that  the  mode  which  regards  the 
sequence  as  merely  apparent  and  typical  is  in  perfect 
accordance  with  scripture  usages,  and  the  just  laws  of  inter 
pretation. 

1.  I  say,  then,  in  the  first  place,  that  nothing  is  more 
common  in  scripture  than  to  describe  sequences  of  apparent 
causation  in  the  same  language  as  is  used  to  describe  real 
causation. 

2.  Secondly,    in   the   case   of  types  in  particular,    the 
sequences  are  very  often  those  of  apparent  causation,  and 
yet  are  always  spoken  of  in  the  same  language  which  is 
used  to  denote  real  causation. 

3.  Thirdly,  that,  in  the  case  of  any  type,  if  there  is  in 
the  nature  of  things  a  valid  objection  to  the  admission  of 
real  causation  between  the  antecedent  and  the  consequent, 
we  have  a  perfect  right  to  resort  to  the  interpretation  which 
assumes  apparent  causation. 

4.  By  thus  presenting  to  the  mind  a  choice  between  the 
two  modes  of  interpretation,  objections  to  the  first  mode 
cease  to  be  objections  against  the  assertions  of  God,  and 
become  appropriate  means  of  deciding  what  his  language 
means,  and  thus  what  his  assertions  are. 

Before  proceeding  to  confirm  my  statements  by  proof,  I 
would  remark  that  the  fundamental  nature  and  the  supreme 
importance  of  the  inquiry  will  authorize  more  detail  of 
scripture  and  other  proof  than  I  should  otherwise  employ. 

If,  therefore,  I  multiply  proofs  and  examples,  it  will 
be  for  the  sake  of  impression,  and  to  countervail  long- 
established  associations  by  the  full  exhibition  of  the  laws 
of  language,  and  the  usages  of  the  word  of  God. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

USB     OF     LANGUAGE     IN     DESCRIBING    SEQUENCES 
OF    APPARENT     CAUSATION. 

V 

WE  come  now  to  consider  the  truth  of  the  propositions 
which  I  have  laid  down.  And,  in  the  first  place,  I  say  that 
there  are  in  the  word  of  God  many  sequences  of  merely 
apparent  causation,  not  only  in  types,  but  elsewhere.  And 
in  all  such  cases  both  scripture  and  the  common  usages  of 
language,  without  hesitation,  denote  these  sequences  by  the 
same  forms  of  speech  which  are  used  to  denote  real  causa 
tion.  Of  this  we  may  find  striking  illustrations  in  the  case 
of  miracles,  where  the  causative  power  is  in  God  alone,  and 
yet  is  apparently  exerted  by  second  causes.  For  example, 
Moses,  by  the  direction  of  God,  employed  a  rod,  called  the 
rod  of  God  (Ex.  4  :  20,  and  17 :  9),  in  producing  the 
plagues  of  Egypt,  in  dividing  the  Red  Sea,  and  in  bringing 
water  from  the  rock.  Hence  God  speaks  as  if  the  rod  had 
a  causative  power, —  Ex.  4:17.  "  Take  this  rod.  where 
with  thou  shalt  do  signs."  Hence,  also,  without  hesitation, 
men  say  that  BY  the  rod  of  Moses  the  water  of  Egypt  was 
turned  into  blood,  thunder  and  hail  were  brought  from 
heaven,  and  swarms  of  locusts  were  summoned  to  devour 
the  land.  So  also  they  sny  that  by  the  rod  of  Moses  the 
Red  Sea  was  divided,  and  water  was  brought  from  the  flinty 
rock. 


380  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

In  like  manner,  so  far  as  language  is  concerned,  a  caus 
ative  power  to  work  miracles  is  by  God  ascribed  to  Moses 
himself;  for,  in  Num.  20 :  8,  God  says  to  him,  "  Thou 
shalt  bring  forth  to  them  water  out  of  the  rock ;  so  shalt 
thou  give  the  congregation  and  their  beasts  to  drink." 

So  also  it  is  said  (Acts  5:  12),  "  By  the  hands  of  the 
apostles  (that  is,  by  the  apostles)  were  many  signs  and 
wonders  wrought  among  the  people."  God  also  said  to 
Moses,  "  Lift  thou  up  the  rod,  and  stretch  out  thine  hand 
over  the  sea  and  divide  it."  (Ex.  14  :  16.) 

This  mode  of  speech  is  natural  to  man,  and  almost  uni 
versal.  If  we  will  read  commentators,  and  the  sermons 
even  of  the  most  eminent  divines,  we  shall  find  that  they 
speak  as  if  miracles  were  in  fact  wrought  by  second  causes ; 
that  is,  they  speak  according  to  the  appearance  of  things. 
Thus  they  freely  say  that  handkerchiefs  or  aprons  from  the 
body  of  Paul,  or  even  his  shadow,  healed  the  sick,  or  that 
the  sick  were  healed  by  them.  (Acts  19  :  12.)  So  also 
they  say  that  by  an  ointment  made  of  Christ's  spittle  and 
clay,  and  by  washing  in  the  pool  of  Siloam,  the  eyes  of  the 
blind  man  were  opened ;  and  also  that  by  washing  in  the 
Jordan  the  leprosy  of  Naaman  was  healed. 

So  also  it  is  said  that  by  a  stick  of  wood  thrown  into  the 
water  the  lost  head  of  the  axe  was  made  to  swim ;  and  that 
the  bad  water  near  Jericho  was  healed  by  salt  that  was 
thrown  into  it ;  and  that  the  bitter  water  of  Marah  was  made 
sweet  by  a  branch  of  a  tree  thrown  into  it. 

In  like  manner  it  is  said  that  Elijah  and  Elisha  divided 
the  Jordan  by  smiting  it  with  their  mantle ;  and  that  the  same 
river  was  again  divided  by  the  feet  of  the  priests,  and  the 
ark  of  the  covenant ;  that  Elisha  made  iron  to  swim  by  a 
stick  of  wood,  and  that  by  the  blowing  of  horns  and  a  shout 
the  walls  of  Jericho  were  thrown  down. 


SEQUENCES    OF   APPARENT    CAUSATION.  381 

Also,  in  describing  all  these  facts,  the  mode  of  expression 
is  often  varied,  and  the  apparent  cause  is  said  directly  to 
do  that  which  follows  it.  The  rod  of  Moses  is  said  to  have 
divided  the  sea,  and  the  mantle  of  Elijah  the  Jordan.  Salt 
healed  the  waters  of  Jericho,  a  stick  of  wood  made  iron  to 
swim,  and  a  branch  of  a  tree  rendered  sweet  the  bitter 
waters  of  Marah. 

As  an  example  of  the  general  usage  in  question,  we  will 
quote  Dr.  Smalley : — "The  Red  Sea  was  divided  by 
Moses'  rod,  and  the  river  Jordan  by  Elijah's  mantle.  It 
was  by  smiting  the  flinty  rock  in  the  wilderness  that  the 
waters  were  made  to  flow  out  of  it  like  a  river.  It  was  by- 
throwing  a  stick  into  the  river  that  the  young  prophet's  axe 
was  made  to  swim,  and  by  washing  seven  times  in  the  Jor 
dan  that  Naaman  was  healed  of  his  leprosy."  He  is  here 
endeavoring  to  show  that  men  are  not  regenerated  by  any 
causative  efficiency  of  the  truth  ;  and,  to  explain  such  state 
ments  as  that  men  are  "born  again  by  the  word  of  God" 
he  regards  it  as  a  case  of  merely  apparent  causation,  spoken 
of  in  the  same  language  that  is  used  to  denote  real  caus 
ation,  and  quotes  these  instances  as  parallel  cases.  Whether 
he  is  correct  or  not  in  denying  that  the  word  of  God  is  a 
real  cause  in  regeneration,  he  is  certainly  correct  in  his 
recognition  of  the  law  of  language  which  I  have  stated. 
Cases  of  apparent  causation,  he  clearly  saw,  are  often 
described  by  the  same  language  which  is  used  to  describe 
real  causation. 

In  like  manner,  what  is  said  to  be  done  by  the  rod  of 
Moses,  or  by  the  mantle  of  Elijah,  or  by  the  salt,  or  the 
branch  of  a  tree,  or  the  stick  of  wood,  is  at  other  times  said 
to  be  done  by  Moses  or  Elijah  or  Elisha  themselves, 
although  they  did  not  do  it  any  more  than  the  material 
instrument  which  they  used.  There  is  no  need  of  more 


382  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

numerous  quotations  to  illustrate  and  prove  these  usages ; 
they  are  so  abundant  that  any  one  can  find  them  for 
himself  at  pleasure. 

I  now  proceed  to  another  connected  usage  of  language 
which  is  worthy  of  special  notice.  I  refer  to  the  common 
and  almost  universal  practice  of  forming  illustrative  com 
parisons  by  means  of  these  sequences  of  apparent  causation. 
It  will  be  noticed  that,  in  such  cases,  there  is  on  one  side  a 
sequence  of  apparent  causation  to  illustrate  a  sequence  of 
real  causation  on  the  other.  Thus  Henry  says  of  Elisha, 
' '  He  was  a  man  of  great  power ;  he  could  make  iron  to 
swim,  contrary  to  its  nature ;  God's  grace  can  thus  raise 
the  stony  iron  heart,  which  is  sunk  into  the  mud  of 
this  world,  and  raise  up  affections  naturally  earthly  to 
things  above."  Here  apparent  and  real  causation  are 
expressed  in  the  same  language,  and  one  is  used  to  illustrate 
the  other.  He  says  of  Naaman,  "His  being  cleansed  by 
washing  put  an  honor  on  the  law  for  cleansing  lepers," 
He  says  of  Elisha,  ' '  He  cast  the  salt  into  the  spring  of  the 
waters,  and  so  healed  the  streams  and  the  ground  they 
watered.  Thus  the  way  to  reform  men's  lives  is  to  renew 
their  hearts ;  let  those  be  seasoned  with  the  salt  of  grace, 
for  out  of  them  are  the  issues  of  life."  Here,  too,  are  the 
elements  of  a  typical  comparison.  As  Elisha,  by  casting 
in  salt,  healed  the  fountains  of  water,  so  God  by  his  grace 
heals  the  fountains  of  spiritual  life  in  the  soul.  In  this 
case  there  is  on  one  side  apparent,  on  the  other  real  causa 
tion,  similarly  expressed.  Scott  says  that  at  Marah  a  tree 
was  pointed  out  to  Moses,  "  by  means  of  ivhich  the  waters 
became  sweet  and  wholesome."  Henry  says,  "  The  Jews' 
tradition  is,  that  the  wood  of  this  tree  was  itself  bitter,  yet 
it  sweetened  the  waters  of  Marah :  so  the  bitterness  of 
Christ's  suffering  and  death  alters  the  property  of  ours." 


SEQUENCES    OF   APPARENT    CAUSATION.  383 

Here  again  apparent  and  real  causation  are  expressed  alike, 
and  one  is  used  to  illustrate  the  other.  Of  Elisha,  Henry 
says,  "  He  was  possessed  of  Elijah's  power  of  dividing  the 
Jordan."  Also,  speaking  of  "  the  influence  which  the 
rod  of  Moses  had  upon  the  battle  with  the  Amalekites," 
he  says,  "to  convince  Israel  that  the  hand  of  Moses  (with 
whom  they  had  just  now  been  chiding)  contributed  more  to 
their  safety  than  their  own  hands,  his  rod  than  their  sword, 
the  success  rises  and  falls,  as  Moses  lifts  up  or  lets  down 
his  hands." 

Again,  comparing  Moses  and  Elijah,  he  says,  "As  Moses 
with  his  rod  divided  the  sea,  so  Elijah  with  his  mantle 
divided  Jordan."  With  reference  to  the  passage  of  the 
Jordan  under  Joshua,  he  says,  "  These  waters  of  old  yielded 
to  the  ark,  now  to  the  prophet's  mantle." 

In  some  of  the  preceding  examples,  when  no  comparison 
is  formed,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  strongest  language  of  real 
causation  is  used  to  describe  sequences  which  are  known  to 
be  entirely  devoid  of  causation.  In  the  last  comparisons  the 
sequences  on  both  sides  are  those  of  apparent  causation. 


CHAPTER  V. 

USB     OF    LANGUAGE     IN     DESCRIBING     APPARENT 
CAUSATION     IN     TYPES. 

UNDER  the  general  laws  of  language  as  to  sequences  of 
apparent  causation  comes  that  which  it  is  my  main  purpose 
at  this  time  to  consider.  I  refer  to  typical  sequences  with 
out  any  causative  power,  but  established  merely  for  the 
purpose  of  illustrating  other  sequences,  in  which  there  is 
real  causation.  Such  sequences  are  merely  typical  sequences. 
They  have  no  foundation  in  the  nature  of  things.  I  do 
not  mean  to  assert,  of  course,  that  a  sequence  in  which 
there  is  real  causation  cannot  be  a  type,  but  only  that 
there  were  sequences  that  had  no  causative  power,  and  were 
therefore  merely  typical.  They  were  merely  positive  insti 
tutions  for  typical  purposes.  In  the  acts  of  David  as  king, 
in  which  he  was  a  type  of  Christ,  I  do  not  deny  that  he 
exerted  real  and  causative  power  ;  as,  for  example,  in  defend 
ing  the  people  of  God  and  defeating  their  foes.  In  other 
cases,  however,  if  they  were  not  established  for  the  sake  of 
making  a  type,  the  sequences  would  not  have  existed  at  all, 
for  they  have  no  foundation  in  the  existing  nature  of  things. 
A  sequence  of  this  kind  I  call  a  merely  typical  sequence  ; 
it  is  a  sequence  of  merely  apparent  causation,  established  for 
the  sake  of  a  typical  illustration  of  another  sequence  of  real 
causation. 

In  this  case  the  same  laws  of  language  exist  as  in  any 


APPARENT  CAUSATION  IN  TYPES.        385 

other  sequence  of  apparent  causation;  that  is,  the  lan 
guage  of  real  causation  is  used.  It  is  the  more  important 
to  observe  this,  inasmuch  as  a  neglect  of  these  laws  is  the 
main  cause  of  the  misinterpretation  of  the  passage  in  ques 
tion. 

For  example,  God  ordained  that  after  certain  sacrifices 
sins  should  be  remitted.  This  is  a  sequence  of  merely 
apparent  causation,  for  it  is  impossible  that  the  blood  of 
bulls  and  of  goats  should  take  away  sins.  But  when  the 
sacrifice  of  Christ  is  followed  by  the  remission  of  the  sins  of 
the  believer,  the  causation  is  real.  Moreover,  the  first 
of  these  sequences  was  established  for  the  sake  of  fore 
shadowing  the  second.  It  is,  therefore,  a  merely  typical 
sequence. 

God  also  ordained  that  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  the 
paschal  lamb  on  the  door-posts  of  the  houses  of  his  people 
should  be  followed  by  exemption  from  the  stroke  of  the 
angel  of  death.  Here,  too,  the  blood  had  no  causative 
power  to  save.  It  was  a  sequence  established  to  illustrate 
the  power  of  Christ's  blood  to  avert  the  blow  of  divine  jus 
tice.  Yet  of  this  blood  Scott  uses  the  following  remarkable 
language:  "The  blood  of  the  paschal  lamb,  sprinkled  on 
the  lintel  arid  door-posts,  was  the  only  security  to  the 
Israelites  from  the  destroyer  who  smote  the  Egyptians  ;  and 
under  that  protection  they  must  abide  during  the  whole 
night,  if  they  would  be  secured  from  destruction.  Thus 
must  we  abide  in  Christ  by  faith  to  the  end  of  our  days," 
In  like  manner  the  sacred  writers  habitually  speak  accord 
ing  to  the  appearance  of  things ;  and  express  a  typical 
sequence,  in  which  no  causation  exists,  by  the  same  terms 
in  which  they  express  a  sequence  of  real  causation  in  the 
antitype.  Accordingly,  the  Mosaic  sacrifices  are  said,  in  the 
word  of  God,  times  without  number,  to  take  away  sins,  to 

OQ 

00 


886  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

make  atonement  for  sins,  to  confer  the  pardon  of  sins,  &c. ; 
the  very  modes  of  expression  that  are  used  in  describing  the 
effects  of  the  efficient  atoning  power  of  the  blood  of  Christ. 
For  example,  the  man  who  was  guilty  of  fraud  as  to  a  trust 
or  in  fellowship,  or  of  violent  robbery,  or  of  deceit,  or  of  ap 
propriating  what  had  been  found  and  was  known  to  belong  to 
another,  and  swearing  falsely  to  conceal  it,  was  commanded 
first  to  make  restitution,  and  then  to  bring  a  ram  as  a  tres 
pass  offering  unto  the  priest,  and  then  the  following  une 
quivocal  language  is  used :  ' {  And  the  priest  shall  make 
atonement  for  him  before  the  Lord ;  and  it  shall  be  forgiven 
him  for  anything  of  all  that  he  hath  done  in  trespassing 
therein."  (Lev.  6  :  1 — 7.)  The  same  kind  of  language  is 
repeated,  in  various  cases,  in  the  preceding  chapter.  This 
usage  of  language  is  most  impressively  exhibited  in  the  six 
teenth  of  Leviticus,  in  the  account  of  the  great  annual 
expiation  made  by  the  High  Priest  in  the  holy  of  holies  for 
the  whole  people,  by  the  sprinkling  of  blood  upon  and 
before  the  mercy-seat.  He  is  expressly  said  to  make  atone 
ment,  by  the  sacrifice  of  the  scape-goat,  for  himself,  and 
for  his  household,  and  for  all  the  congregation  of  Israel, 
and  to  take  away  all  their  iniquities,  as  fully  as  this  is  ever 
said  to  be  done  by  the  atonement  made  by  the  blood  of 
Christ,  of  which  this  great  annual  expiation  was  the  most 
striking  type. 

I  am  aware  that  Socinus  and  others  have  asserted  that 
the  Mosaic  sacrifices  were  offered  only  for  certain  lighter 
offences  and  sins  of  ignorance,  but  not  for  sins  in  general. 
In  reply  to  them,  Turrctin,  referring  to  the  passages  just 
quoted,  and  to  numerous  others,  clearly  proves  that  they 
were  offered  for  sins  in  general,  even  of  the  most  atrocious 
kind.  He  asks.  "When  God,  in  Lev.  16,  mentions  ini 
quities  and  rebellions,  nay,  all  their  sins,  does  he  mean 


APPARENT   CAUSATION    IN    TYPES.  387 

only  infirmities  and  sins  of  ignorance  ?  No  sane  man  can 
believe  it."  He  shows  that  the  sins  for  which  these  sacri 
fices  were  offered  were  designated  by  the  same  names  as 
the  greatest  and  most  intentional  and  voluntary  sins,  and 
then  adds,  "  Since  the  sins  for  which  these  sacrifices  were 
offered  are  expressed  by  all  these  names,  without  any 
restriction, —  nay,  since  the  expiation  is  expressly  extended 
to  all  sins,  of  whatever  kind, —  he  would  do  injustice  to  the 
Holy  Spirit  who  should  limit  them  to  sins  of  a  particular 
kind."  (Turretin,  Disp.  xix.  on  the  atonement  of  Christ,  $ 
9  and  4.)  He  also  freely  speaks  of  these  sacrifices  as  mak 
ing  atonement  for  all  these  sins,  in  language  as  full  as  is 
ever  used  concerning  the  atonement  of  Christ ;  and  he 
adverts  to  the  same  use  of  language  in  the  Scriptures. 

The  substitution  of  the  victim,  the  imposition  of  hands, 
the  confession  of  sins,  the  shedding  of  blood,  the  depreca 
tion  of  divine  anger,  and  the  effects  of  the  whole  transaction, 
he  refers  to  as  proving  that  by  these  sacrifices  an  atone 
ment  for  real  and  great  sins  was  made.  "For,"  says  he, 
"if  the  sacred  rites  were  duly  performed,  and  the  victim 
was  declared  to  be  accepted,  and  to  be  a  sweet-smelling 
savor,  then  the  consequences  were  the  forgiveness  of  sins 
and  the  liberation  of  the  criminal.  Hence,  repeatedly  you 
may  read  in  Lev.  4,  5,  &c.,  'the  priest  shall  make  atone 
ment  for  him.  and  his  sins  shall  be  forgiven.' "  (Disp.  xvni. 
$7.)  He  also  illustrates  this  view  by  a  reference  to  cases 
in  which  it  is  said  that  an  atonement  was  in  fact  made  and 
accepted,  and  God  appeased  by  it  (Disp.  xix.  $  6),  and  then 
adds,  ' '  Thus,  in  innumerable  other  cases,  as  often  as  the 
anger  of  God  against  the  sins  of  men  is  appeased  by  sacri 
fices,  so  often  is  it  intimated  that  these  sacrifices  are  offered 
not  for  some  particular  and  lighter  sins,  but  for  all  in  gen 
eral,  unless  in  any  case  particular  exceptions  are  made  in 


388  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

the  law."     The  existence  of  some  such  specially  exempted 
cases  he  admits. 

Yet,  in  other  places,  the  same  Turretin  no  less  distinctly 
declares  that  these  sacrifices  had  no  power  to  purify  the 
conscience  by  a  real  atonement,  or  by  any  real  efficiency  to 
take  away  sin.  He  expressly  states  and  proves  the  follow 
ing  proposition:  "The  victims  and  sacrifices  of  the  law 
neither  expiated  nor  could  expiate  any  sin,  properly  speak 
ing  ;  they  could  only  expiate  certain  corporeal  and  ceremo 
nial  impurities."  (Disp.  xix.  $  18.) 

Hence  he  says,  "  There  are  various  modes  of  speaking 
concerning  these  victims  that  seem  to  be  contradictory  ;  for 
at  one  time  it  is  denied  that  they  have  the  power  of  atoning 
for  sins,  and  at  another  time  it  is  asserted.  But  these  state 
ments  are  easily  reconciled  by  making  this  distinction  :  we 
deny  to  them  the  power  of  expiation  considered  in  them 
selves  and  in  their  relations  to  the  law ' '  (that  is,  the  causa 
tion  is  merely  apparent)  ;  i  i  but  we  ascribe  it  to  them  viewed 
as  connected  with  Christ  in  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  in 
their  relations  to  the  mysteries  of  the  gospel,  of  which  they 
were  the  types  and  representations."  (Disp.  xix.  $  26.) 
That  is,  viewing  them  as  types,  we  use  this  language  just  as 
if  the  causation  were  real,  though  in  fact  it  is  in  Christ  only. 

All,  then,  that  I  have  stated,  concerning  the  laws  of 
typical  language,  is,  in  fact,  recognized  by  Turretin,  and 
would  be  true  if  it  were  not.  There  was  in  the  sacrifices  a 
merely  typical  sequence,  designed  to  represent  a  real  and 
causative  sequence,  effected  by  the  atonement  of  Christ ; 
but  the  language  used  to  describe  each  sequence  was  the 
same,  so  that,  although  the  sacrifices  had  no  power  to  make 
atonement  for  sins,  yet,  as  types  of  the  great  atonement, 
they  were  again  and  again  said  to  make  such  atonement. 

A  very  striking  case  of  a  similar  sequence  of  apparent 


APPARENT  CAUSATION  IN  TYPES.        889 

causation  is  found  in  the  history  of  the  rebellion  of  Korah. 
(Num.  16  :  46,  47.)  Wrath  had  gone  out  from  the  Lord, 
and  the  plague  had  begun.  Moses  said  to  Aaron,  Go,  ' '  take 
a  censer,  and  fire,  and  incense,  and  make  an  atonement  for 
them.  And  Aaron  ran  into  the  midst  of  the  people,  and 
behold  the  plague  was  begun  ;  and  he  put  on  incense  and 
made  an  atonement  for  the  people,  and  he  stood  between  the 
dead  and  the  living,  and  the  plague  was  stayed." 

On  this  Scott  says,  "  This  success  was  a  decisive  proof 
of  the  efficacy  of  his  priesthood."  "  By  his  burning  of 
incense  the  plague  was  instantly  stayed."  "In  this  he 
was  an  eminent  type  of  Christ,  and  his  intercession,  by 
which  his  atonement  is  rendered  effectual  to  our  salvation." 
Here  is  a  striking  typical  illustration  of  the  kind  which  1 
am  describing.  On  one  side  is  a  merely  typical  sequence, 
devoid  of  causative  power ;  on  the  other,  a  causative  sequence 
of  real  and  glorious  power.  Yet  God  says  that  Aaron 
made  atonement,  and  the  plague  was  stayed.  Concerning 
this  same  scene,  Henry  says,  "  The  cloud  of  Aaron's 
incense,  coming  from  his  hand,  stayed  the  plague."  Yet 
did  he  suppose  that  there  was  in  the  incense  any  real 
power  to  heal  so  fatal  a  pestilence  ?  It  ought  here  to  be 
attentively  noticed,  that  as  now  by  incense,  so  in  the  case 
of  the  passover  by  the  sprinkling  of  blood  on  the  door 
posts  in  Egypt,  temporal  death  was  averted.  But  by 
Christ's  blood  and  intercession  spiritual  death  is  averted. 

But,  when  sacrifices  and  incense  are  said  to  atone  for  sin, 
does  the  language  ever  mislead  an  intelligent  reader  1  He 
knows  that  blood  and  incense  cannot  thus  atone.  He 
knows  equally  well  that  there  is  no  power  to  remit  sins  but 
in  the  great  atoning  sacrifice  of  Christ,  and  that  the  remis 
sions  following  Mosaic  sacrifices  were,  in  fact,  effected  by 
the  power  of  that  great  atonement,  as  foreseen. 
33* 


890  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

Indeed,  this  use  of  causative  language  is  so  natural  that 
we  fall  into  it  spontaneously  and  abundantly.  For  ex 
ample,  though  we  know  that  a  brazen  serpent  had  no  power 
to  heal  one  who  had  been  bitten  by  a  venomous  fiery 
serpent,  yet  we  as  naturally  speak  of  the  serpent  lifted  up 
by  Moses  as  healing  those  who  looked  to  it  as  we  do  of 
Christ  as  healing  those  who  look  to  him.  Scott  says,  "  The 
sight  of  the  brazen  serpent  healed  the  people."  Henry 
says,  "  That  which  cured  was  shapen  in  the  likeness  of  that 
which  wounded. "  "  A  serpent  of  brass  cured  them. "  "  Jesus 
Christ  came  to  save  us  by  healing  us,  as  the  children  of 
Israel  that  were  stung  by  fiery  serpents  were  cured  and 
lived  by  looking  up  to  the  brazen  serpent."  Peers,  speak 
ing  of  this  type,  says,  "The  tremulous  eye  of  infancy,  or 
the  feeble  sight  of  old  age,  if  only  directed  to  its  proper 
object,  alike  experienced  its  salutary  energy  ;  and  the 
obscure  and  imperfect  faith  of  those  whose  natural  faculties 
may  be-  insufficient  to  comprehend  the  mysteries  of  the 
kingdom,  or  even  to  explain  the  nature  of  their  belief,  yet 
if  humbly  directed  to  the  author  of  life,  shall  experience 
his  power  to  save  equally  with  their  more  highly-gifted 
brethren."  "  As  each  sufferer  must  himself  look  to  the 
brazen  serpents/or  his  cure,  so  must  every  repenting  sinner 
believe  (in  Christ)  for  salvation."  Yet  he  well  knew,  for 
so  he  says,  that  the  healing  efficacy  was  not  in  the  serpent, 
but  in  God.  Newton  says,  "  From  guilt  and  condemnation 
there  is  no  relief,  till  we  can  look  to  Jesus,  as  the  wounded 
Israelites  did  to  the  brazen  serpent ;  which  was  not  to  give 
efficacy  to  medicines  and  plasters  of  their  own  application, 
but  to  heal  them  completely  of  itself  by  looking  at  it" 
Yet  he  knew  that  in  reality  it  had  of  itself  no  healing 
power.  No  stronger  language  can  be  used  to  denote  a 
causative  sequence  than  is  here  used  to  denote  a  sequence 


APPARENT  CAUSATION  IN  TYPES.         391 

not  causative,  but  merely  typical.  Edwards  says,  "The 
way  that  the  people  were  saved  by  the  brazen  serpent  was 
by  looking  to  it,  beholding  it,  as  seeking  and  expecting  sal 
vation  from  it.  And  faith  and  trust  in  the  Messiah  are 
often  spoken  of  as  the  great  condition  of  salvation  through 
him"  Calvin  says,  "  Christ  was  to  be  lifted  up  that  all 
might  look  to  him.  Of  this  there  was  a  type  in  the  brazen 
serpent  lifted  up  by  Moses,  the  sight  of  which  was  a  sav 
ing  cure  for  those  who  were  mortally  wounded  by  the  bite 
of  serpents."  Turretin  says,  "  If  a  living  serpent  bit 
any  one,  a  dead  serpent  cured  him,  and  that  merely  by  the 
sight  of  it."  Yet  elsewhere  he  says  that  neither  the  ser 
pent  nor  the  act  of  looking  to  him  had  any  healing  power. 
He  then  asks,  "Why  was  the  serpent  lifted  up  as  a 
remedy  for  the  wounds  of  Israel  ?  Why  did  a  sight  of 
it  heal  ? ' '  He  answers,  ' '  Because  the  serpent  was  a  divinely- 
ordained  type  of  Christ,  and  his  power  to  heal  the  wounds 
of  sin."  Doddridge,  in  his  paraphrase,  says.  "  As  Moses 
lifted  up  the  brazen  serpent  on  a  pole  in  the  wilderness,  to 
heal  those  that  were  dying  by  the  venom  of  the  fiery 
serpents  there,  so  also  must  the  Son  of  Man  be  first  lifted 
up  on  a  cross,  and  then  publicly  exhibited  in  the  preaching 
of  the  gospel,  that  sinners  may  receive  by  him  a  far  more 
noble  and  important  cure" 

I  quote  thus  largely  in  order  to  make  the  laws  of  lan 
guage  in  such  cases  familiar,  and  could  easily  multiply  cases 
from  the  usages  of  language  concerning  other  types.  But 
what  I  have  quoted  must  be  sufficient.  In  this  last  case, 
two  things  are  deserving  of  very  particular  notice.  One, 
that  a  typical  sequence,  not  implying  causative  power,  is 
expressed  in  precisely  the  same  way  as  the  causative 
sequence  which  it  typified.  The  other,  that  the  type 
relates  to  the  healing  of  the  body,  the  antitype  to  the  heal- 


392  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

ing  of  the  mind,  just  as  the  sprinkling  of  blood  in  Egypt 
and  the  incense  of  Aaron  related  to  averting  temporal 
death,  but  the  blood  and  intercession  of  Christ  to  averting 
spiritual  and  eternal  death,  in  accordance  with  the  analogy 
established  by  God  between  things  material  and  things 
spiritual. 

Let  us  now  review  what  has  been  proved.  It  has  been 
shown, 

1.  That  nothing  is  more  common  than  the  existence  in 
types  of  sequences  of  apparent   causation,  established   for 
purposes  of  typical  illustration. 

2.  That  these,  in  common  with  all  other  sequences  of 
apparent  causation,  are  both  in  scriptural  and  in  common 
usage  described  in  the  very  language  that  is  used  to  denote 
real  causation. 

It  follows  that,  if  in  the  case  of  any  type  there  is  a  valid 
objection  to  admitting  a  sequence  of  real  causation,  we  have 
a  perfect  right  in  interpretation  to  assume  that  the  language 
denotes  a  sequence  of  apparent  causation. 

That  the  justice  and  honor  of  God  forbid  a  sequence  of 
real  causation  in  the  case  of  Adam,  has,  I  think,  been  shown, 
and  will  more  fully  be  shown.  The  inference  is  self-evident. 


CHAPTER    VI. 

APPLICATION     OF    THE    PRECEDING    PRINCIPLES 
TO    ROM.     5:  12—19. 

I  COME  now  to  apply  the  principles  which  have  been 
illustrated  to  the  passage  which  is  the  main  subject  of  our 
present  consideration.  The  passage  in  question  is  as  fol 
lows  :  "12.  Wherefore  as  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the 
world,  and  death  by  sin ;  and  so  death  passed  upon  all  men, 
for  that  all  have  sinned.  13.  (For  until  the  law,  sin  was  in 
the  world ;  but  sin  is  not  imputed  when  there  is  no  law. 

14.  Nevertheless,  death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses,  even 
over  them  that  had  not  sinned  after  the  similitude  of  Adam's 
transgression,   who  is  the  figure  of  him  that  was  to  come. 

15.  But  not  as  the  offence,  so  also  is  the  free  gift.     For  if 
through  the  offence  of  one  many  be  dead,  much  more  the 
grace  of  God,  and  the  gift  by  grace,  which  is  by  one  man, 
Jesus  Christ,  hath  abounded  unto  many.     16.  And  not  as 
it  was  by  one  that  sinned,  so  is  the  gift.     For  the  judgment 
was  by  one  to  condemnation,  but  the  free  gift  is  of  many 
offences  unto  justification.     17.  For  if  by  one  man's  offence 
death   reigned  by  one ;    much    more    they  which   receive 
abundance  of  grace?  and  of  the  gift  of  righteousness,  shall 
reign  in  life  by  one,  Jesus  Christ.)  18.  Therefore,  as  by  the 
offence  of  one  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condemna 
tion,  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one  the  free  gift  came 


394  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

upon  all  men  unto  justification  of  life.  19.  For  as  by  one 
man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners,  so  by  the 
obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made  righteous." 

So  far  as  the  relations  of  Adam  to  his  race  are  con 
cerned,  this  passage,  as  it  stands,  asserts  (v.  12)  that  by 
one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin,  and 
so  (that  is,  by  one  man)  death  passed  upon  all  men,  for 
that  all  have  sinned ;  v.  15,  through  the  offence  of  one 
the  many  have  died ;  v.  16,  the  judgment  was  by  one  to 
condemnation;  v.  17,  by  one  man's  offence  death  reigned 
by  one ;  v.  18,  by  the  offence  of  one,  judgment  came  upon 
all  men  to  condemnation ;  v.  19,  by  one  man's  disobedi 
ence  the  many  were  made  sinners. 

Tholuck  refers  to  Chrysostom,  Theophylact,  and  Grotius, 
as  taking  the  expression  "all  have  sinned,"  in  v.  12,  to 
mean  "all  have  been  treated  as  sinners."  He  also  con 
cedes  that  the  original  words  ncivxes  ^/HU^TOV  may  have  that 
sense,  and  so  does  Professor  Stuart.  Storr  and  Bloomfield 
adopt  it.  Knapp  also  gives  to  the  word  afiaQria  (sin)  the 
sense,  "  the  guilt  of  sin,"  and  Schleusner  "  the  guilt  and 
punishment  of  sin."  These  judicial  senses  of  these  words 
are  still  further  authorized  by  the  highest  authority,  as  will 
appear  hereafter. 

Accordingly,  I  shall  take  the  expressions  "  all  have 
sinned,"  v.  12,  and  "many  were  made  sinners,"  v.  19,  to 
mean  "  were  made  liable  to  penalty  as  sinners ;"  and  "  sin," 
v.  12,  to  mean  "  liability  to  penalty  as  a  sinner."  Thus 
understood,  these  verses  coincide  in  idea  with  the  statement 
of  verse  16,  that  "  the  judgment  was  by  one  to  condemna 
tion;"  and  of  verse  18,  that  "by  the  offence  of  one  judg 
ment  came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation." 

It  is  plain  also  that  the  sinful  act  of  Adam,  and  the  con 
demnation  that  followed  it,  are  set  forth  as,  in  a  general 


APPLICATION    OF   PRINCIPLES.  395 

view,  typical,  by  way  of  similitude  and  antithesis,  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  and  of  the  justification  of  believers 
thereby. 

The  main  questions  in  the  interpretation  of  this  passage, 
thus  viewed,  are,  what  is  the  import  of  the  condemnation 
or  judgment  on  the  human  race  which  is  said  to  be  by  the 
offence  of  Adam,  and  what  is  the  real  connection  between 
Adam's  sin  and  this  condemnation  or  judgment ;  —  is  it 
causative,  or  only  typical  ? 

In  reply  to  these  inquiries,  I  say,  in  view  of  the  prin 
ciples  already  set  forth,  that  when  a  certain  sinful  act  of 
Adam,  and  its  sequences,  condemnation  and  death,  are  set  forth 
as  antithetically  typical  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  and  its 
sequences,  justification  and  life,  there  is  good  reason  for 
insisting  that  the  sequence  in  the  case  of  Adam  does  not 
involve  a  causative  power.  It  should  clearly  be  regarded  as 
merely  typical,  and  not  causative.  Moreover,  the  fact  that 
the  sequence  to  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  spiritual, —  that 
is,  eternal  life, —  is  no  proof  at  all  that  the  typical  sequence 
to  the  sin  of  Adam  is  not  natural,  —  that  is,  corporeal  death, 
—  in  accordance  with  the  same  laws  of  analogy  which  we  see 
observed  in  the  case  of  bodily  wounds  healed  by  the  brazen 
serpent,  as  a  type  of  mental  wounds  healed  by  Christ.  On 
these  principles,  the  sequences  would  stand  thus  :  As  by  the 
transgression  of  one  (Adam)  condemnation  and  natural  death 
came  on  all  naturally  related  to  him,  so  by  the  righteous 
ness  of  one  (Christ)  justification  and  eternal  life  came  on 
all  spiritually  related  to  him. 

The  passage,  thus  viewed,  simply  teaches  that  Adam  was 
a  typical  person  ;  and  that  his  transgression,  and  the  events 
consequent  thereon,  were  so  arranged  as  to  be  typical 
events ;  and  accordingly  were  so  ordered  by  God  that  the 
condemnation  of  the  race  to  death  for  his  offence,  and  its 


396  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

sequences,  should,  both  bj  way  of  similarity  and  also  of 
antithesis  or  contrast,  be  a  striking  foreshadowing  of  the 
justification  and  life  of  all  who  trust  in  the  great  Saviour, 
by  whom  the  church  was  to  be  redeemed  out  of  our  race ; 
and  that  what  is  said  to  be  done  by  Adam,  or  by  his 
offence,  to  his  posterity,  denotes  a  merely  typical  sequence, 
and  not  a  sequence  of  causation. 

Let  us,  then,  consider  more  in  detail  the  truth  of  these 
statements. 

First,  then,  as  to  the  typical  character  of  Adam,  it  is 
asserted  in  express  terms.  He  is  said  to  be  a  type  of  him 
who  is  to  come  (jvnos  iov  ^illovroi^  •  that  is,  of  Christ.  Nor 
is  this  the  only  place,  as  we  shall  see,  where  this  typical 
character  is  asserted  or  assumed. 

His  typical  character  is,  in  this  passage,  developed  by 
points  of  similarity,  modified  and  limited  by  points  of  con 
trast.  Let  us  first  consider  the  points  of  similarity. 

1.  One   point  of  similarity  lies  in  the  fact  that  in  each 
case  there  is  unity  of  headship  in  reference  to  those  related 
to  each.     God  might,  if  he  had  seen  fit,  have  introduced  the 
human  race  into  this  world  by  many  heads.     But,  if  he  had 
done  so,  then  it  wrould  not  have  foreshadowed  the  one  great 
redeeming  head  of  the  church,  who  was  to  come.     Hence  he 
introduced  them  by  one  head.     For  this  reason,   Adam  is 
prominently  set  forth  as  the  one  who  is  the  sole  head  of  his 
natural  posterity,  and  thus,  as  a  type  of  Christ,  as  the  one 
who  is  the  sole  head  of  believers  in  him.     On  this  unity  of 
headship,  in  each  case,  the  whole  comparison  turns.     As  by 
ONE  came  condemnation  and  death,  so  by  ONE  came  justifi 
cation  and  life. 

2.  In  each   case  the  relations  of  each  head  were  not 
limited  and  national,  but  catholic,  extending  to  men  of  all 
nations.     The  pride  of  the  Jews  conceived  of  a  Messiah 


APPLICATION    OF   PRINCIPLES.  397 

whose  highest  favors  should  be  peculiarly  and  exclusively 
their  own.  As  a  conquering  king,  he  was  destined  to  exalt 
their  nation  above  all  others.  This  exclusive  idea  Paul 
rebuts  by  saying  that,  as  the  first  Adam  (the  type)  was 
not  national  in  his  relations,  but  universal, —  as  through 
him  all  men  were  sentenced  to  natural  death, — so  must  the 
second  Adam  be  the  universal  head  and  Saviour  of  all  men 
of  all  nations  who  believe  in  him,  justifying  alike  all  who 
believe, —  making,  in  this  respect,  no  distinction  between 
Gentile  and  Jew. 

3.  Another  point  of  similarity  is  that  in  each  case  there  is 
a  judicial  act  in  consequence  of  what  is  done  by  each  head. 
This  idea  enters  deeply  into  the  whole  structure  of  the  pas 
sage,  from  beginning  to  end.  The  preceding  discussion  of 
Paul  relative  to  the  effects  of  the  atonement  of  Christ  had 
been  judicial.  Justification  is  a  judicial  act,  flowing  from 
something  done  by  Christ,  the  antitype.  So  also  is  con 
demnation  a  judicial  act,  flowing  from  something  done  by 
Adam,  the  type.  The  entire  spirit  of  the  passage  is  judi 
cial.  It  speaks  of  acquitting  and  condemning,  and  not  of 
making  holy  or  sinful ;  and,  as  before  remarked,  the  judicial 
act  flowing  from  the  conduct  of  each  head  extends  to  all 
connected  with  him.  Condemnation  and  death,  flowing 
from  Adam's  act,  extend  to  all  men.  Justification  and  life, 
flowing  from  Christ's  act,  extend  to  all  of  whom  he  becomes 
the  head  by  faith.  There  is,  therefore,  in  each  case  a  judi 
cial  sequence,  of  which  the  reality  is  asserted ;  while  it  is  of 
necessity  clear  that  there  is  no  efficient  causation  in  the 
case  of  the  type.  Such  are  the  points  of  similarity. 

The  points  of  dissimilarity  and  contrast,  by  which  these 
are  modified  and  limited,  are, 

1.  That  the  action  of  one  head  was  sinful ;   of  the  other, 


righteous. 


34 


398  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

2.  That  the  judicial  act  in  one  case  was  just  condemna 
tion  ;  in  the  other,  gracious  acquittal. 

3.  That  in  one  case  the  result  of  the  judicial  act  was  the 
penalty  of  natural  death ;  in  the  other,  the  free  gift  of  spir 
itual  and  eternal  life.     This  I  shall  more  fully  prove. 

4.  That  the  acquittal  greatly  transcends  in  the  results  of 
grace  the  results  of  the  condemnation,  inasmuch  as  it  justi 
fies  and  confers  eternal  life   notwithstanding  many  sins, 
whereas  the  condemnation  was  based  on  one  sin  and  resulted 
in  natural  death. 

Now.  if  this  is  the  true  view  of  the  passage,  it  decides 
nothing  but  this,  respecting  our  relations  to  Adam,  and  his 
influence  on  the  race,  namely,  the  fact  that  the  sentence  of 
condemnation  to  natural  death  which  was  passed  on  him 
when  he  sinned  was  intended  to  include,  and  from  age  to 
age  actually  to  come  upon,  the  whole  human  race ;  and  that 
accordingly  such  have  been,  and  ever  will  be,  the  sequences 
of  his  act  of  sin.  But  any  efficient  or  causative  power  of 
Adam's  act  to  produce  such  results  it  does  not  imply.  For, 
as  we  have  seen,  the  use  of  causative  language  in  typical 
sequences  by  no  means  implies  any  causative  power,  but 
merely  a  sequence  established  by  God  for  the  sake  of  illus 
tration  and  impression.  And  certainly,  in  the  present  case, 
the  actual  preexistent  sin  of  the  human  race,  each  for  him 
self,  is  a  rational  ground  for  passing  such  a  sentence  ;  but 
the  single  sin  of  the  first  man,  a  sin  in  which  they  neither 
did  or  could  act  at  all,  is  not  either  a  reasonable  or  just 
ground  of  such  a  sequence. 


CHAPTER    VII. 

APPEAL    TO     AUTHORITIES. 

I  HAVE  mentioned,  as  worthy  of  notice,  that  the  judicial 
view  of  this  passage,  independently  of  what  I  have  just 
said  of  the  nature  of  typical  sequences  and  the  interpreta 
tion  of  language  applied  to  them,  excludes  the  interpreta 
tion  which  is  so  common  among  the  New  School  divines 
who  deny  imputation,  namely,  that  the  sin  of  Adam  ex 
erted  an  influence  to  make  all  men  actual  sinners,  or  that 
all  men  are  caused  to  become  actual  sinners  in  consequence 
of  it. 

The  Old  School  divines  teach,  that,  whether  the  sin  of 
Adam  made  all  men  actual  sinners  or  not  in  fact,  at  all 
events,  this  passage  does  not  teach  that  doctrine.  If  to  any 
this  seems  to  be  a  surprising  and  dangerous  position,  to  such 
I  would  say  that  it  is  nevertheless  the  openly-avowed  posi 
tion  of  those  who  are  in  the  highest  repute  for  orthodoxy, 
and  who  consider  themselves  as  peculiarly  devoted  to  its 
vindication  and  defence.  As  this  is  a  very  important  point, 
I  will  state  an  outline  of  the  course  of  reasoning  pursued  by 
Prof.  Hodge,  designing  to  avail  myself  not  only  of  the 
weight  of  his  authority,  but  of  his  logical  and  exegetical 
power,  to  sustain  the  judicial  view  of  the  passage  which  I 
have  given,  and  all  its  legitimate  consequences. 

The  main  scope  of  his  argument  is  to  prove  that  through- 


400  CONFLICT  OF  AGES. 

out  this  passage;  "  the  very  point  and  pith  of  the  com 
parison  "  are  not  this, —  that,  as  the  sin  of  Adam  was  thb 
cause  of  a  corrupt  nature  in  us,  or  of  our  actual  sin  and 
entire  depravity,  so  the  obedience  of  Christ  is  the  cause  of 
the  restoration  to  us  of  true  holiness,  either  in  nature  or  in 
action:  — but  this, — that,  as  through  the  sin  of  Adam  a  con 
demning  sentence  was  passed  upon  all  men,  so,  through  the 
obedience  of  Christ,  a  sentence  of  acquittal  or  justification 
is  passed  on  all  who  trust  in  him.  In  accordance  with  this 
view,  he  holds  that  in  verse  12  the  words  "  by  one  man  sin 
entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin,  and  so  death 
passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned,"  do  not  refer 
to  actual  sin,  or  a  corrupt  nature,  but  to  the  great  fact  that 
through  the  sin  of  Adam  all  men  were  rendered  liable  to 
the  same  sentence  of  death  which  was  passed  on  Adam. 
He  thus  states  the  different  views  of  leading  authors  on  this 
point : 

"  1.  Many,  not  only  of  the  older,  but  also  of  the  modern 
commentators  and  theologians,  understand  sin  here  to  mean 
corruption  ;  so  Storr,  Flatt,  Bretschneider,  &c.  This 
clause,  then,  teaches  that  Adam  was  the  cause  of  the  cor 
ruption  of  our  nature,  which  all  men  have  derived  from  him. 
2.  Others,  taking  the  word  sin  in  its  ordinary  signification, 
understand  the  passage  as  teaching  that  Adam  was  the 
cause  or  occasion  of  all  men's  being  led  to  commit  personal 
or  actual  sin,  either  from  the  force  of  example  or  circum 
stances,  or  divine  constitution.  3.  Others  understand  the 
declaration  that  '  through  Adam  all  men  became  sinners '  to 
mean  that  on  his  account  all  men  are  regarded  and  treated 
as  sinners" 

He  then  proceeds  to  state  the  arguments  against  the  first 
and  second  opinions,  and  in  favor  of  the  third.  Against  the 
first  he  reasons  as  follows  : 


APPEAL   TO    AUTHOEITIES.  401 

"  1.  It  assigns  a  very  unusual,  if  not  an  unexampled 
sense  to  the  words, —  the  word  rendered  have  become  cor 
rupt  not  occurring  elsewhere  with  this  signification.  2.  It 
destroys  the  analogy  between  Christ  and  Adam.  The 
point  of  the  comparison  is  not,  '  As  Adam  was  the  source 
of  corruption,  so  is  Christ  of  holiness  ; '  but,  '  As  Adam  was 
the  cause  of  our  condemnation,  so  is  Christ  of  our  justifica 
tion.'  3.  It  is  inconsistent  with  the  meaning  of  vs.  13.  14. 
which  are  designed  to  prove  that  the  ground  of  the  univer 
sality  of  death  is  the  sin  or  offence  of  Adam.  4.  It  would 
require  us,  in  order  to  preserve  any  consistency  in  the  pas 
sage,  to  put  an  interpretation  on  vs.  15,  16,  17,  18,  19, 
which  they  will  not  bear.  Although  the  sentiment,  there 
fore,  is  correct  and  scriptural,  that  we  derive  a  corrupt 
nature  from  Adam,  as  it  is  also  true  that  Christ  is  the 
author  of  holiness,  yet  these  are  not  the  truths  which 
Paul  is  here  immediate//)/  desirous  of  presenting." 

His  objections  to  the  second  view  are  presented  in  the 
form  of  arguments  for  the  third.  The  main  course  of  argu 
ment  I  approve,  but  not  every  particular  argument. 

1.  The  words  translated  "sin,"  and  "have  sinned,"  in 
v.  12,  may,  in  strict  accordance  with  scriptural  usage, 
have  the  sense  of  liability  to  condemnation,  or  penalty,  or 
of  becoming  liable  to  penalty,  so  as  to  be  regarded  and 
treated  as  sinners.  On  this  point  his  argument  is  clearly 
conclusive.  It  is  as  follows  : 

"  The  word  translated  have  sinned  may,  in  strict  accord 
ance  with  usage,  be  rendered  have  become  guilty,  or 
regarded  and  treated  as  sinners.  Gen.  44  :  32  is  in 
Greek,  '  I  shall  have  sinned  '  (^««gTJ?xfl)«  eoro/mi.),  which  ex 
presses  the  same  idea  as  the  English  version  of  the  passage  ; 
'  I  shall  bear  the  blame  to  my  father  forever,'  that  is,  '  I 
shall  always  be  regarded  as  a  sinner.'  The  same  phrase 
34* 


i02  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

occurs,  43  :  9,  '  Then  let  me  bear  the  blame,'  the  precise 
idea  of  being  regarded  as  a  sinner  ;  1  Kings  1 :  21,  'I  and 
my  son  Solomon  shall  be  sinners.'  that  is,  regarded  and 
counted  as  such.  In  our  version,  therefore,  it  is  correctly 
rendered,  '  Shall  be  counted  offenders.'  (In  Greek,  eaojuut 
eyu  xcn,  x.  T.  1.  aaagTMkoi.}  In  Job  9  :  29,  '  If  I  be  wicked' 
is  the  opposite  idea  to  '  thou  will  not  hold  me  innocent, '  v. 
28,  and  therefore  means,  '  If  I  be  condemned  or  regarded 
as  wicked.'  Indeed,  there  is  no  usage  more  familiar  to  the 
student  of  the  Bible  than  one  nearly  identical  with  this. 
'He  shall  be  clean,'  'he  shall  be  unclean,'  '  he  shall  be 
just,'  'he  shall  be  wicked,'  are  expressions  constantly 
occurring  in  the  sense  of  'he  shall  be  so  regarded  and 
treated.'  (See  Storr's  Observationes,  p.  14.)  The  inter 
pretation,  therefore,  which  has  been  given  of  these  words, 
instead  of  being  forced  or  unusual,  is  agreeable  to  one  of 
the  most  common  and  familiar  usages  of  scripture  language. 
Even  Wahl,  in  his  Lexicon,  so  explains  them,  '  a/ua^niM, 
to  bear  the  blame  of  sin,  Rom.  5  :  12,  coll.  v.  19,  ubi 
*,wttgrwA5$  xaTfcrratf?/*'.  Ita  Lxx.  et  ^rC1,  Gen.  44 :  32.' ' 

His  argument  on  the  expression  were  made  simiers  (v. 
19)  is  as  follows  : 

"  It  is  in  accordance  with  one  of  the  most  familiar  of  scrip 
tural  usages  that  the  words  to  make  sinners,  are  inter 
preted  as  meaning  to  regard  and  treat  as  such.  This 
interpretation,  which  is  demanded  both  by  the  usage  of  the 
terms  employed  (see  on  Rom.  8:4)  and  the  antithesis  in 
this  verse,  is  now  almost  universally  adopted  by  all  classes 
of  commentators.  (See  Wahl's  Lexicon  under  the  word 
uftugjiu.)  Thus,  to  make  clean,  to  make  unclean,  to  make 
righteous,  to  make  guilty,  are  the  constant  scriptural  ex 
pressions  for  regarding  and  treating  as  clean,  unclean, 
righteous  or  unrighteous.  (See  on  v.  12.) 


APPEAL   TO    AUTHORITIES.  403 

"The  expressions,  to  make  sin,  and  to  make  right 
eousness^  occurring  in  a  corresponding  sense,  illustrate  and 
confirm  this  interpretation.  Thus,  in  2  Cor.  5  :  21,  Christ 
is  said  to  be  '  made  sin,'  that  is,  regarded  and  treated  as  a 
sinner,  l  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in 
him,'  that  is,  that  we  might  be  regarded  and  treated  as 
righteous,  in  the  sight  of  God,  on  his  account.  The  word 
(%aiecricifr>j(Tat>}  rendered  were  made,  in  its  ground  form 
signifies  to  place,  and  is  often  equivalent  very  nearly  with 
the  simple  verb  to  be.  James  4:4,'  Whosoever,  there 
fore,  will  be  the  friend  of  the  world,  is  an  enemy  of  God  ; ' 
see  also  3:6.  It  also  signifies  to  constitute  in  the  sense 
of  appointing  to  office,  Luke  12 :  14  •  Acts  7  :  10,  &c. 
&c. ;  or  in  that  of  making  a  person  or  thing  something. 
In  this  case  it  may  be  rendered  simply  they  are.  i  By  one 
man's  disobedience  many  are  sinners,  or  are  constituted 
such,  or  are  made  such?  The  idea  is  the  same.  The 
antithesis  is  here  so  plain  as  to  be  of  itself  decisive.  '  To 
be  made  righteous '  is,  according  to  Prof.  Stuart,  <  to  be 
justified,  pardoned,  regarded  and  treated  as  righteous.' 
With  what  show  of  consistency,  then,  can  it  be  denied  that 
'  to  be  made  sinners,'  in  the  opposite  clause,  means  to  be 
regarded  and  treated  as  sinners?  If  one  part  of  the  verse 
speaks  of  justification,  the  other  must  speak  of  condemna 
tion." 

2.  In  v.  12,  a  comparison  is  begun,  which  is  resumed 
and  completed  in  vs.  18  and  19.  "  It  will  be  seen  that  those 
verses  teach  that  'judgment  came  upon  all  men  on  account 
of  the  offence  of  one  man ;  '  that  '  on  account  of  the  disobe 
dience  of  one  man  all  were  regarded  as  sinners.'  To  this 
corresponds  the  plain  declaration  of  v.  16.  '  We  are  con 
demned  for  one  offence.'  If,  then,  these  verses  express  the 
same  idea  with  v.  12,  as  is  freely  admitted  by  Prof.  Stuart 


404  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

and  others,  we  are  forced  to  understand  verse  12  as 
teaching,  not  the  acknowledged  truth  that  men  are 
actual  sinners,  but  that  they  have  been  treated  as  sinners 
on  account  of  one  man" 

3.  The  connection  of  v.   12    with    those  which    follow 
demands  this  interpretation;  for  vs.  18,  14   are  designed 
to  prove  the  assertion  of  v.  12  in  the  sense  which  is  claimed, 
and  are  inconsistent  with  any  other  sense. 

4.  It  is  assumed  in  vs.  15 — 19  that  the  truth  of  v.  12  has 
been  proved,  in  this  sense,  as  a  proper  basis  of  reasoning 
and  illustration. 

5.  "  This  interpretation  is  required  by  the  whole  scope 
of  the  passage  and  drift  of  the  argument.     The  scope  of  the 
passage,  as  shown  above,  is  to  illustrate  the  doctrine  of  jus 
tification  on  the  ground  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  by  a 
reference  to  the  condemnation  of  men  for  the  sin  of  Adam. 
Not  only  does  the  scope  of  the  passage  demand  this  view, 
but  only  thus  can  the  argument  of  the  apostle  be  consist 
ently  carried  through.     We  die  on  account  of  Adam's  sin, 
v.  12  ;  this  is  true,  because  on  no  other  ground  can  the  uni 
versality  of  death  be  accounted  for  (vs.  13,  14).     But,  if 
we  all  die  on  Adam's  account,  how  much  more  shall  we 
live  on  account  of  Christ  (v.  15)  !     Adam,  indeed,  brings 
upon  us  the  evil  inflicted  for  the  first  great  violation  of  the 
covenant,  but  Christ  saves  us  from  all  our  numberless  sins, 
v.  16.     As,  therefore,  for  the  offence  of  one  we  are  con 
demned,  so  for  the  righteousness  of  one  we  are  justified  (v. 
18).      As  on  account  of  the  disobedience  of  one  we  are 
treated  as  sinners,  so  on  account  of  the  obedience  of  one  we 
are  treated  as  righteous  (v.  19).     The  inconsistency  and 
confusion  consequent  on  attempting  to  carry  either  of  the 
other  interpretations  through,  must  be  obvious  to  any  atten 
tive  reader  of  such  attempts." 


APPEAL   TO    AUTHORITIES.  405 

6.  Scripture  and  experience  confirm  this  interpretation. 

7.  It  accords  with  the  views  of  the  Jews  at  the  time  of 
the  apostle  and  afterward. 

8.  "This  interpretation,  so  far  from  being  the  offspring 
of  theological  prejudice,  or  fondness  for  any  special  theory, 
is  so  obviously  the  true  and  simple  meaning  of  the  passage 
required  by  the  context,  that  it  has  the  sanction  of  theolo 
gians  of  every  grade  and   class  of  doctrine.       Calvinists, 
Arminians,  Lutherans,  Rationalists,  agree  in  its  support. 
Thus  Storr,  one  of  the  most  accurate  of  philological  inter 
preters,  explains  the  last  words  of  the  verse  in  the  manner 
stated   above.       '  By  one  man  all  are    subject   to  death, 
because  all  are  regarded  and  treated  as  sinners  ;   that  is, 
because  all  lie  under  the  sentence  of  condemnation.'     The 
phrase  all  have  sinned  (v.  12),  he  says,  is  equivalent  to  all 
are  constituted  sinners  (v.  19)  ;   which  latter  expression 
he   renders  '  sie  werden  als   Sunder  angesehen  and  behan- 
delt,'   that  is,  they  were  regarded  and  treated  as  sinners. 
See  his  Commentary  on  Hebrews,  p.  636,  640.  <fcc.     (Flatt 
renders  these  words  in  precisely  the  same  manner.)     The 
Rationalist  Ammon  also  considers  the  apostle  as  teaching 
that  on  the  account  of  the   sin  of  Adam  all  men  are  sub 
ject  to  death.     (See  Excursus  C.  to  Koppe's  Commentary 
on  the  Ep.  to  the  Romans.)     Zacharise,  in  his  Biblische 
Theologie,  vol.  vi.  p.  128,  has  an  excellent  exposition  of 
this  whole  passage.      The  question  of  the  imputation  of 
Adam's   sin,  he  says,  is  this  :   c  Whether  God  regarded  the 
act  of  Adam  as  the  act  of  all  men,  or,  which   is  the  same 
thing,  whether  he  has  subjected  them  all  to  punishment  on 
account  of  this  single  act.'     This,  he  maintains,  the  apostle 
asserts  and  proves.     On  this  verse  he  remarks,  c  The  ques 
tion  is  not  here  immediately  about  the  propagation  of  a 
corrupted  nature  to  all  men,  and  of  the  personal  sins 


406  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

committed  by  all  men,  but  of  universal  guilt  (Strafwiir- 
digkeit,  liability  to  punishment),  in  the  sight  of  God,  which 
has  come  upon  all  men ;  and  which  Paul  in  the  sequel  does 
not  rest  on  the  personal  sins  of  men,  but  only  on  the  offence 
of  one  man,  Adam  (v.  16).'  Neither  the  corruption  of 
nature,  nor  the  actual  sins  of  men  and  their  liability  on 
account  of  them,  is  either  questioned  or  denied  ;  but  the 
simple  statement  is,  that  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam 
all  men  are  treated  as  sinners.  Zachariae,  it  must  be 
remembered,  was  not  a  Calvinist,  but  one  of  the  modern 
and  moderate  theologians  of  Gottingen.  Whitby,  the  great 
advocate  of  Arminianism,  says,  on  these  words,  It  is  not 
true  that  death  came  upon  all  men  for  that  or  because  all 
have  sinned.  (He  contends  for  the  rendering  in  whom.) 
For  the  apostle  directly  here  asserts  the  contrary,  namely, 
that  the  death  and  the  condemnation  to  it,  which  befell  all 
men,  was  for  the  sin  of  Adam  only ;  for  here  it  is  expressly 
said  that  by  the  sin  of  one  man  many  died ;  that  the 
sentence  was  from  one,  and  by  one  man  sinning  to  con 
demnation  ;  and  that  by  the  sin  of  one  death  reigned  by 
one.  Therefore,  the  apostle  doth  expressly  teach  us  that 
this  death  —  this  condemnation  to  it  —  came  not  upon  us 
for  the  sin  of  all,  but  only  for  the  sin  of  one ;  that  is,  of 
that  one  Adam  in  whom  all  men  die.  (1  Cor.  15:  22.) 
Such  extracts  might  be  indefinitely  multiplied  from  the  most 
various  sources.  However  these  commentators  may  differ 
in  other  points,  they  almost  all  agree  in  the  general  idea, 
which  is  the  sum  of  the  whole  passage,  that  the  sin  of 
Adam,  and  not  their  own  individual  actual  transgres 
sions,  is  the  ground  and  reason  of  the  subjection  of  all 
men  to  the  penal  evils  here  spoken  of.  With  what  plau 
sibility  can  an  interpretation  commanding  the  assent  of  men 
so  various  be  ascribed  to  theory  or  philosophy,  or  love  of  a 


APPEAL    TO    AUTHORITIES.  407 

particular  theological  system  ?  May  not  its  rejection  with 
more  probability  be  attributed,  as  is  done  by  Knapp,  to 
theological  prejudice  ?  Certain  it  is,  at  least,  that  the 
objections  against  it  are  almost  exclusively  of  a  philosophical 
or  theological,  rather  than  of  an  exegetical  or  philological 
character." 

That  I  do  not  agree  with  Prof.  Hodge  in  the  extent  of 
meaning  which  he  assigns  to  the  word  death,  is  apparent 
from  what  I  have  previously  said.  On  this  point  I  shall 
soon  speak  more  at  large.  But  this  does  not  affect  the 
general  question,  whether  the  words  sitij  to  sin  and  to  make 
sinners,  in  vs.  12,  19,  are  to  be  taken  in  the  judicial  sense, 
as  he  asserts,  or  in  one  of  the  senses  which  he  opposes.  In 
deed,  many  of  those  to  whom  he  appeals  as  authorities  in 
behalf  of  the  judicial  sense  of  the  terms  restrict  the  words 
die  and  death  to  natural  death,  in  the  passage  in  question. 
Setting  aside,  therefore,  this  point,  I  regard  it  as  plain  that 
Professor  Hodge  is  right  on  the  main  question ;  that  is,  he 
is  right  in  holding  that  the  words  sin,  to  sin  and  to  be 
made  sinners ,  in  vs.  12  and  19,  are  to  be  taken,  in  the 
judicial  sense,  to  denote  subjection  to  the  condemning  sen 
tence  of  the  law  violated  by  Adam,  and  a  consequent  lia 
bility  to  death,  the  penalty  annexed ;  and  that  to  this  reference 
is  had  in  the  "judgment  by  one  to  condemnation  "  of  v.  16, 
and  the  "  coming  of  judgment  upon  all  men  to  condemna 
tion  by  the  offence  of  one"  of  v.  18.  Thus  the  main  idea 
of  the  passage  is  simply  this  :  as  through  Adam  came  con 
demnation,  so  through  Christ  came  justification. 

As  in  this  particular,  therefore.  I  stand  on  old  and  gen 
erally-acknowledged  ground,  I  do  not  feel  that  I  need  to 
put  forth  any  special  efforts  in  its  defence.  So  clear  is  the 
evidence  in  favor  of  this  mode  of  interpretation,  and  so  ably 
has  it  been  developed  by  Professor  Hodge  and  others,  that  I 


408  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

do  not  see  any  present  demand  for  a  new  laborer  in  this 
field. 

At  the  same  time,  I  do  not  admit  the  existence  of  any 
thing  but  a  merely  typical  sequence  in  the  case  of  Adam. 
Though,  so  far  as  the  form  of  the  language  used  is  con 
cerned,  it  may  express  a  causative  sequence,  yet  I  adopt  the 
same  principles  of  interpretation  as  I  do  when  it  is  said  by 
Turretin  that  ' '  a  sight  of  the  brazen  serpent  healed ;  ; '  or 
by  Calvin,  that  "it  was  a  saving  cure  for  those  who  were 
mortally  wounded;  "  or  by  Edwards,  that  "  the  people  were 
saved  by  the  brazen  serpent,  by  looking  to  it;  "  or  when  the 
scripture  says  that  sacrifices  or  incense  atoned  for  sin.  Such 
language  describes  divinely-ordained  sequences,  according  to 
the  appearance  of  things,  and  not  according  to  such  real  laws 
of  causation  as  connect  justification  with  faith  in  Christ. 

And  now,  before  I  leave  this  part  of  the  subject,  I  would 
once  more  call  special  attention  to  the  great  fact,  so  often 
and  so  clearly  asserted  by  Professor  Hodge,  that,  if  the  main 
idea  of  the  passage  is  what  has  been  stated,  then  it  does  not 
teach  that  "  the  sin  of  Adam  was  the  occasion  of  our  sins, 
for  which  we  are  condemned"  (p.  202);  nor  "that  the 
offence  of  Adam  was  the  means  of  involving  us  in  a  multi 
tude  of  crimes,  from  which  Christ  saves  us  "  (p.  203)  ;  nor 
"  that  Adam's  sin  was  the  occasion  of  our  sinning,  and  thus 
incurring  the  divine  displeasure  "  (p.  210)  ;  nor  "  that  the 
sin  of  Adam  was  the  occasion  of  all  men's  being  placed  in 
euch  circumstances  that  they  all  sin,  and  thus  incur  death  31 
(p.  199)  ;  nor  "  that,  by  being  the  cause  of  the  corruption 
of  their  nature,  it  is  thus  indirectly  the  cause  of  their  con 
demnation  "  (p.  199,  200).  On  the  other  hand,  such  a 
mode  of  interpretation  "  destroys  the  analogy,  and  causes 
the  very  point  and  pith  of  the  comparison  to  fail  "  (p.  185). 
11  That  we  have  corrupt  natures,  and  are  personally  sinners, 


APPEAL   TO    AUTHORITIES.  409 

and  therefore  liable  to  other  and  further  inflictions,  is  indeed 
true,  but  nothing  to  the  point."     (p.  185.) 

The  force  of  the  reasoning  by  which  Prof.  Hodge  sus 
tains  these  statements  I  fully  admit.  I  regard  it  as 
perfectly  unanswerable  against  the  idea  that  this  passage 
teaches  that  the  sin  of  Adam  was  the  cause  either  of  our 
actually  sinning  or  of  a  corrupt  nature  in  us.  I,  therefore, 
most  fully  concede  that  which  is  so  earnestly  and  ably 
maintained  by  the  highest  Old  School  authority  ;  I  concede 
that,  though  it  is  true  that  we  have  corrupt  natures,  and  are 
personally  sinners,  and  therefore  liable  to  other  and  higher 
inflictions,  yet  these  things  are  not  asserted  IN  THIS  PASSAGE 
to  have  been  caused  by  the  sin  of  Adam,  and  that  any  such 
assertion  would  be  nothing  to  the  point  of  the  argument,  but 
directly  opposed  to  it.  Moreover,  I  concede  that  leading 
scholars  of  all  parties  confirm  this  view.  But,  if  these  things 
are  not  asserted  in  this  passage  to  have  been  caused  by  the 
sin  of  Adam,  then  plainly  they  are  not  asserted  to  have  been 
caused  by  it  at  all,  in  any  part  of  the  word  of  God ;  for 
there  is  no  other  passage  of  scripture  in  which  it  can  be 
even  pretended,  with  any  show  of  plausibility  whatever,  that 
these  things  are  asserted.  It  appears,  then,  as  the  final 
result  of  these  well-sustained  premises,  that  the  doctrine 
that  our  depraved  natures,  or  our  sinful  conduct,  have  been 
caused  or  occasioned  by  the  sin  of  Adam,  is  not  asserted  in 
any  part  of  the  word  of  God. 

Nor  is  this  result  peculiar  to  the  Old  School  Calvinists. 
It  is  found;  at  least  substantially,  in  one  section  of  the 
New  England  divines.  I  refer  to  Dr.  Emmons,  and 
other  advocates  of  the  scheme  of  divine  efficiency,  so 
called,  who,  with  equal  clearness,  deny  any  causative  power 
of  Adam's  act  to  produce  either  a  depraved  nature  or 
actual  sin.  It  is,  according  to  them,  a  mere  condition  on 
35 


410  CONFLICT   uF    AGES 

which  God  suspended  his  decision,  that  he  would  exercise 
his  power  in  causing  sinful  volitions  in  all  men  from  the 
beginning  of  free  agency.  Moreover,  it  was  God  who 
caused  this  condition  itself  to  occur. 

The  theory  of  Prof.  Hodge,  Turretin  and  others  of  like 
views,  as  to  the  real  origin  of  human  depravity,  does  not  in 
principle  differ  from  this  view  of  Dr.  Emmons.  True,  they 
deny  God's  direct  efficiency  in  causing  sinful  volitions  by 
reason  of  Adam's  sin  ;  but  they  do  clearly  teach  that  on 
that  ground  he  creates  the  soul  without  original  righteous 
ness,  and  withdraws  from  it  those  divine  influences  which 
are  essential  to  prevent  the  corruption  of  nature  and  entire 
sinfulness  in  action.  According  to  each  theory,  therefore, 
the  sin  of  Adam  exerted  a  direct  influence,  not  on  his  pos 
terity,  but  on  God.  It  caused  him  to  change  his  mode  of 
action  towards  new-created  minds,  and  thus  directly  or 
indirectly  to  cause  their  depravity,  either  of  action  only,  or 
of  nature  and  action  both. 

Moreover,  the  whole  evidence  even  of  this  indirect  influ 
ence  of  Adam's  sin  on  his  posterity,  through  God,  is  derived 
solely  from  the  sense  which  is  attached  to  the  word  death 
in  this  passage.  It  is  assumed  that  it  does  not  denote 
merely  natural  death,  but  penal  evils  of  all  kinds,  natural 
and  spiritual,  temporal  and  eternal.  Assuming  this  sense 
of  the  word,  they  proceed  to  unfold,  as  above  stated,  how 
God  inflicts  the  penalty  in  this  broad  sense.  The  grounds 
of  this  view  claim  a  careful  consideration. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

IMPORT  OF  THE  WORD  DEATH,  IN  ROM. 
6 :  12—19. 

THAT  the  interpretation  of  the  word  death  last  referred  to 
—  that  is,  as  including  the  death  of  the  soul  —  is  not  based 
on  any  sound  critical  grounds,  can  be  shown  with  great  ease. 

1.  In  the  first  place,  that  it  is  not  its  obvious  sense  is 
plain  from  the  fact  that  four  centuries  passed  away,  after 
the  epistle  to  the  Romans  was  written,  before  the  word  was 
ever  here  interpreted  in  this  broad  sense.     Nor  was  that 
sense  ever  adopted  by  the  Greek  church  at  all.    Is  it  not  to  be 
supposed  that  the  Greek  fathers  were  capable  of  judging 
what  was   the  true  sense  of  so  plain  and  so  common  a 
word,  as  here  used  by  a  writer  of  Greek  ? 

2.  In  part  of  the  passage  natural  death  is  plainly  and 
confessedly  meant,  as  when  it  is  said  "death  reigned  from 
Adam  to  Moses,"  and  consistency  demands  the  same  sense 
through  the  passage. 

8.  The  facts  referred  to  by  Paul  as  recorded  in  the  Old 
Testament,  and  on  which  his  reasoning  is  based,  demand 
this  view.  He  refers  to  a  certain  typical  transaction  as  well 
known,  and  assumes,  as  terms  of  comparison,  certain  events. 
These  are  recorded  in  Gen.  ch.  2  and  3.  Let  us  briefly 
recapitulate  them. 

In  Gen.  2 :  16,  17,  is  contained  the  law  or  rule  of  con- 


412  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

duct  prescribed  to  Adam,  allowing  him  in  general  to  eat 
of  the  trees  of  the  garden,  but  forbidding  him  to  eat  of  the 
tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil.  The  penalty  threat 
ened,  in  case  of  disobedience,  was  death.  On  the  day  thou 
eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt  surely  die. 

In  Gen.  3  :  6,  7,  the  specific  act  is  related  by  which  the 
law  was  violated,  called  "the  offence  of  one"  and  "one 
man's  disobedience."  After  Eve  had  taken  of  the  fruit  of  the 
forbidden  tree  and  eaten,  she  gave  to  Adam  and  he  did  eat. 
This  act  of  Adam  is  pointedly  characterized  in  Rom.  5  :  16 
as  being  one  offence,  in  opposition  to  many  offences ;  and 
in  vs.  15,  17,  18,  19,  as  the  offence  of  the  one  man,  whose 
grand  peculiarity  is,  that  he  is  the  one  through  whom,  as  a 
type  of  the  coming  Messiah,  God  was  about  to  introduce 
into  this  world  the  whole  human  race. 

In  Gen.  3 :  14 — 19,  is  narrated  the  passing  of  the  sen 
tence  on  all  the  offenders.  On  the  serpent  eternal  degra 
dation,  eternal  hostility  between  him  and  his  seed,  and  the 
woman  and  her  seed,  and  final  defeat,  at  the  expense  of 
incidental  suffering  to  the  Messiah.  On  the  woman,  great 
sorrow  and  pain  in  child-birth,  increased  dependence  on  man, 
need  of  his  aid,  and  entire  subjection  to  him. 

On  man,  a  curse  on  the  ground,  rendering  the  support  of 
life  more  difficult  and  laborious ;  and  finally,  natural  or  tem 
poral  death, — "  Dust  thou  art.  and  unto  dust  shalt  thou 
return." 

Thus,  all  parts  of  the  penalty  are  minutely  and  fully 
developed,  without  the  remotest  allusion  to  spiritual  and 
eternal  death.  In  a  transaction  so  plainly  typical  such  a 
penalty  would  have  been  out  of  place.  At  all  events,  the 
import  of  the  death  threatened  is  here  fixed.  It  denotes 
merely  natural  death.  Besides  these,  no  facts  are  on  record 
as  the  basis  of  the  comparison  in  Rom.  5  :  12 — 19.  Paul 


IMPORT    OF   THE    WORD    DEATH.  413 

refers,  therefore,  to  these  alone,  and  by  reference  to  these 
we  must  interpret  his  language. 

It  also  appears  that  the  sentence  of  death  was  intended  to 
include  the  race.  The  mode  of  address  is,  as  Edwards  well 
remarks,  as  much  suited  to  include  the  race  as  that  in  Gen. 
1 :  27 — 29,  which  enjoins  on  Adam  and  Eve  fruitfulness,  sub 
jugation  of  the  earth  and  rule  over  it,  and  confers  on  them 
vegetables  for  food, — a  mode  of  address  which  obviously  in 
cludes  the  race.  Moreover,  all  parts  of  the  sentence,  on  both 
Adam  and  Eve,  come  of  necessity  on  men  of  all  ages.  The 
curse  on  the  ground  reaches  all  generations ;  for  it  began  at 
once,  and  has  extended  to  this  day.  This  part  of  the  sen 
tence,  then,  was  at  that  time  denounced  on  all  men,  and 
meets  them  in  all  ages.  So  pains  of  child-birth,  need  of  the 
aid  of  man,  and  subjection  to  him,  come  on  all  women  in 
all  ages.  Finally,  natural  death  comes  on  all  men  in  all 
ages. 

Hence,  the  words  "  offence  "  and  "  disobedience  "  refer  to 
one  well-known  act  of  one  man,  followed  by  a  well-known 
sentence,  which  sentence  in  its  scope  includes  the  whole 
race,  and  is,  in  fact,  executed  on  all.  Hence  "the  judg 
ment  "  and  "  condemnation  "  relate  to  this  well-known  sen 
tence  and  condemnation,  as  left  on  record,  and  the  death 
referred  to  is  natural  death.  In  view  of  these  facts,  it  is 
plain  that,  in  making  out  the  parallel  and  antithesis 
between  Christ  and  Adam,  a  strict  adherence  to  the  Old 
Testament  required  Paul  merely  to  say  that  this  particu 
lar,  definite,  well-known  sentence  came  on  all  men  in  all 
ages  ;  for  the  passage  in  Genesis  actually  means  no  more. 
Hence  his  language  ought  not  to  be  made  to  mean  more,  in 
Rom.  5  :  12 — 19,  than  is  involved  in  the  facts  to  which  he 
refers.  We  ought  to  interpret  "  death  "  in  Romans  by  the 
sentence  in  Genesis ;  and  this  says  nothing  of  spiritual  and* 
35* 


414  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

eternal  death.  It  refers  to  temporal  death,  and  that  only. 
The  words  are,  "  Dust  thou  art,  and  unto  dust  shalt  thou 
return." 

The  main  argument  for  the  extended  sense  of  death  (that 
is,  all  kinds  and  degrees  of  penal  evil)  is  taken  from  the 
fact  that  on  the  other  side  of  the  antithesis  life  is  taken  in 
the  full  and  highest  sense,  and  not  to  denote  natural  life. 
But,  as  I  have  already  abundantly  shown,  the  type  is  often 
in  the  natural  world,  and  the  antitype  in  the  spiritual,  as 
when  the  brazen  serpent  healed  bodily  wounds  caused  by 
serpents,  as  a  type  of  Christ's  healing  the  mental  wounds 
caused  by  sin  and  Satan :  or,  as  when  deliverance  from 
natural  death  by  the  blood  of  the  paschal  lamb  typified 
deliverance  from  spiritual  death.  Indeed,  the  whole  system 
of  material  types  is  but  a  carrying  out  of  this  principle. 
Hence,  Edwards  says,  "  Not  only  the  things  of  the  Old 
Testament  are  typical,  for  this  is  but  one  part  of  the  typi 
cal  world.  The  system  of  created  beings  may  be  divided 
into  two  parts,  the  typical  world  and  the  antitypical  world. 
The  inferior  and  carnal, —  that  is,  the  more  external  and 
transitory  part  of  the  universe,  that  part  of  it  that  is  in 
choative,  imperfect  and  subservient,  —  is  typical  of  the 
superior  spiritual  and  durable  part  of  it.  which  is  the  end, 
and,  as  it  were,  the  substance  and  consummation  of  the 
other.  Thus  the  material  and  natural  world  is  typical  of 
the  spiritual  and  intelligent  world,  or  the  city  of  God.  And 
many  things  in  the  world  of  mankind,  as  to  their  external 
and  worldly  state,  are  typical  of  things  pertaining  to  the 
city  and  kingdom  of  God."  Now,  if  this  is  so,  and  if  natu 
ral  life  and  death  are  typical  of  spiritual  life  and  death,  how 
appropriate,  how  impressive,  how  worthy  of  God,  to  make 
the  sentencing  of  the  whole  human  race  to  natural  death 
through  the  offence  of  Adam  a  type,  by  way  of  antithesis, 


IMPORT  OF  THE  WORD  DEATH.         415 

of  the  restoration  of  spiritual  and  eternal  life,  the  justifi 
cation  of  all  who  believe  in  Christ  ! 

In  addition  to  this,  it  is  clear,  from  1  Cor.  15,  that  Paul 
elsewhere  looks  on  the  sentence  as  denoting  simply  natural 
death,  and  does  not  take  the  more  comprehensive  view. 
11  For  since  by  man  came  death,  by  man  came  also  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead.  For  as  through  Adam  all  die, 
even  so  through  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive."  It  is, 
then,  in  perfect  accordance  with  his  habits  of  thought,  that 
Paul  should  in  Romans  also  regard  the  sentence  which 
came  through  Adam  as  a  sentence  of  natural  death.  There 
is,  therefore,  in  view  of  all  that  has  been  said,  nothing 
arbitrary  or  forced,  or  against  the  general  practice  of  the 
Scriptures,  in  this  view.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  in  perfect 
accordance  with  the  nature  of  things  and  the  general  prac 
tice  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  merely  a  case  of  illustrating 
spiritual  things  by  things  natural  and  material ;  and  need  I 
say  that  this  pervades  the  Bible  ?  Natural  health  and  life 
and  light  on  the  one  hand,  and  disease  and  death  and  dark- 
ness  on  the  other,  are  the  standing  scriptural  illustrations 
of  spiritual  health,  life,  light,  or  spiritual  disease,  death  and 
darkness.  Nay,  what  is  the  whole  Mosaic  system  of  mate 
rial  types,  but  a  carrying  out  of  this  principle  ? 

If.  then,  as  we  have  shown,  the  facts  of  the  Old  Testa 
ment  demand  this  view, — if  in  a  part  of  the  passage  the  word 
death  clearly  denotes  natural  death, —  if  this  sense  accords 
with  Paul's  known  habits  of  thought,  and  the  prevailing 
usage  of  the  Bible  in  such  cases, —  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
the  view  which  I  defend  is  true  and  unanswerable. 

The  passage,  therefore,  teaches  nothing  but  the  pronounc 
ing  of  a  sentence  of  condemnation  to  natural  death  on  all 
men,  through  the  sin  of  Adam,  as  a  type  and  illustration, 


4  \6  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

both  by  similitude  and  antithesis,  of  justification  and  life 
eternal  through  the  righteousness  of  Christ. 

To  complete  this  view,  however,  it  is  necessary  to 
repeat  the  statement  which  I  have  already  made,  that,  even 
as  it  respects  natural  death,  the  sin  of  Adam  exerted  no 
causative  power  to  effect  the  condemnation  of  his  race.  It 
did  not  involve  them  in  any  real  guilt  whatever.  I  admit, 
indeed,  without  hesitation,  that  the  established  sequence  of 
condemnation  and  death  on  all  men,  from  the  one  sin  of  the 
one  man  Adam,  is  set  forth  in  forms  of  language  exactly 
like  those  which  denote  the  sequence  of  justification  and 
life  from  Christ,  in  whose  acts  there  was  causative  power. 
Nevertheless.  I  hold,  on  grounds  already  stated,  that,  accord 
ing  to  the  laws  of  typical  language,  the  sequence  in  one 
case  is  merely  typical  and  illustrative,  and  not  causative ; 
in  the  other,  it  is  antitypical  and  causative.  Adam  no  more 
brought  real  guilt  on  his  posterity  than  the  brazen  serpent 
really  healed  those  who  looked  at  it,  or  sacrifices  really 
made  atonement. 

It  is  perfectly  plain  that,  so  long  as  the  great  laws  of  lan 
guage,  which  I  have  developed  as  pervading  the  Bible,  and 
the  common  usage  of  all  interpreters  and  divines. remain,  it 
is  impossible  to  overthrow  this  position.  For,  if  the  strong 
est  forms  of  language  that  can  be  used  to  denote  causative 
sequences  are,  as  I  have  shown,  abundantly  applied  to 
denote  sequences  in  which  there  is  confessedly  no  causative 
power  at  all,  and  if  this  is  eminently  so  in  typical 
sequences,  then  plainly  in  the  case  of  Adam,  who  is  ex 
pressly  declared  to  be  a  type  of  Christ,  no  causative  power 
can  be  proved  by  any  mere  forms  of  language,  however 
strong.  They  are  not  and  cannot  be  stronger  than  those 
forms  which  are  applied  to  typical  sequences  in  other 
cases,  in  which  there  is  no  causation  whatever. 


IMPORT   OF  THE   WORD   DEATH.  417 

I  am  now  prepared  to  advance  another  step,  and  to  say 
that,  even  if  the  words  sin,  to  sin,  and  to  wake  sinners, 
in  vs.  12  and  19,  were  to  be  taken  in  the  sense  claimed  by 
the  New  School  divines,  or  others,  as  referring  to  actual 
sin  or  a  corrupt  nature,  still,  even  so,  it  would  be  impos 
sible  to  prove  by  this  passage  that  the  sin  of  Adam  exerted 
any  causative  power  to  produce  sin  or  a  corrupt  nature  in 
his  posterity.  For,  as  I  have  shown,  even  in  that  case  we 
are  abundantly  authorized  to  interpret  all  the  language  of 
causation  as  denoting  merely  a  typical  sequence  of  a  cor 
rupt  nature,  or  of  sin  and  death  after  Adam's  sin ;  a 
sequence  devoid  of  causative  power,  and  established  by  God 
for  the  sake  of  illustrating  the  sequence  of  holiness,  and 
spiritual  life  from  Christ's  obedience, —  a  sequence  in  which 
there  is  causative  power. 

Moreover,  the  just  power  of  God  to  establish  such  typi 
cal  sequences,  on  the  system  which  I  advocate,  would  origi 
nate  from  the  fact  that,  in  bringing  into  this  world  beings 
already  depraved,  that  from  among  them  he  might  redeem 
his  church,  he  had  a  perfect  right  to  introduce  them,  as  he 
did,  by  one  man,  and  through  him  to  establish  such  a 
sequence  of  sin,  and  death  in  connection  with  his  trans 
gression,  as  should  by  its  typical  power  foreshadow  and 
predict  the  coming  of  that  great  ONE  by  whom  the  church 
was  to  be  redeemed.  As  to  the  principle  of  interpretation 
involved,  it  matters  not  whether  the  sequence  be  as  it  is  set 
forth  by  the  Old  School  divines  or  by  the  New. 

At  the  same  time,  to  my  mind  it  is  perfectly  clear  that 
the  real  sequences  are  these  :  that  through  the  sin  of  Adam 
all  men  were  condemned  to  natural  death,  as  a  type  of  the 
justification  of  the  church  and  her  restoration  to  eternal  life, 
through  the  obedience  of  Christ. 

This  great  antithetic  comparison  lies  at  the  basis  of  the 


418  CONFLICT  OF  AGES. 

whole  passage.  It  is,  however,  as  we  have  seen,  modified 
and  rendered  more  striking  by  the  apostle,  in  some  respects, 
by  pointing  out  certain  particulars  in  which  the  antitype 
greatly  transcends  the  foreshadowings  of  the  type,  in  its 
inestimable  gifts  of  grace  and  glory. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

ADDITIONAL     EVIDENCE. 

THUS  much,  then,  I  think  is  clear, — that,  so  long  as  the 
great  scriptural  laws  of  typical  interpretation  stand,  no  man 
can  be,  with  any  propriety,  condemned  or  censured  for 
understanding  this  passage  in  the  sense  which  I  have  set 
forth.  Nor  is  this  all.  Reasons  of  great  power  exist  for 
its  general  adoption.  Every  form  of  the  common  view  I 
have  shown  to  imply  injustice  and  dishonor  in  God.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  whole  view  which  we  have  taken  of  this 
passage  is  deeply  impressive,  highly  instructive,  and  in  all 
respects  honorable  to  God.  It  is  also  in  full  accordance 
with  the  spirit  and  practice  of  the  inspired  writers. %  This 
will  more  plainly  appear,  if  we  now  present  this  type  in  its 
relations  to  the  other  early  types  with  which  it  is  con 
nected. 

All  of  the  events  connected  with  the  origin  of  this  world 
are  by  the  inspired  writers  treated  as  types,  looking  for 
ward  to  the  ultimate  and  glorious  results  of  a  new-created 
moral  system  about  to  be  produced  by  means  of  the  natural 
creation,  and  at  the  same  time  indicating  the  character  of 
the  materials  out  of  which  that  moral  system  should  be 
created. 

The  earth  without  form  and  void,  and  the  darkness  upon 
the  face  of  the  deep,  are  employed  by  the  apostle  Paul  (2 


420  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

Cor.  4  :  6)  to  symbolize  the  condition  of  disordered  and 
darkened  minds  such  as  those  out  of  which  a  new  creation 
was  to  spring.  As  the  spirit  broods  upon  the  abyss,  and 
the  light  beams  forth  at  the  word  of  God,  we  see  shadowed 
forth  His  action  on  the  mass  of  ruined  minds,  and  the  truth 
by  which  He  operates.  The  harmony  and  beauty  of  the 
completed  natural  creation  strikingly  symbolized  the  higher 
symmetry  and  beauty  of  the  new  creation  in  the  moral 
world, —  the  new  heavens  and  new  earth,  in  comparison  with 
which  the  first  shall  not  be  remembered  or  called  to  mind. 
(Is.  65  :  17,  18.)  So,  also,  the  formation  of  woman  from 
man  typified  the  formation  of  the  church  from  Christ ;  her 
union  to  Adam,  the  marriage  of  the  church  to  Christ ;  their 
exaltation  to  the  head  of  this  natural  system,  the  exaltation 
of  Christ  and  the  church  to  the  head  of  the  universe.  All 
this  the  Bible  plainly  tells  us.  (Eph.  5  :  23—33.  Rev. 
3  :  21.  Rom.  8  :  17,  29.)  (See  note,  p.  423.) 

Suppose,  now,  that  in  a  preexistent  state  sin  had  entered 
and  a  hostile  kingdom  had  been  established,  and  God  cre 
ated  this  world  in  order  to  take  out  of  that  kingdom  by 
regeneration  and  atonement  his  church,  and  to  destroy  the 
remainder, —  how  appropriate  so  to  introduce  the  fallen  race 
into  this  world  as  to  shadow  forth  their  ruined  state  and  the 
great  Redeemer  of  the  church, —  the  great  destroyer  of 
Satan ! 

They  are  already  under  sentence  of  condemnation,  but  he 
is  to  acquit  and  save  the  church,  and  he  is  one.  To  typify 
these  things  by  similitude  and  antithesis,  Adam,  the  head 
of  the  race,  is  one;  he  sins,  and  a  condemning  sentence  of 
natural  death  passes  on  all  his  race.  At  last,  the  second 
Adam  appears  ;  he  is  one ;  he  perfectly  obeys  even  untc 
death,  and  by  his  obedience  and  death  a  gracious  act  of 
pardon  and  eternal  life  come  to  all  connected  with  him  by 


ADDITIONAL    EVIDENCE.  421 

faith.  What  more  appropriate,  what  in  more  perfect  harmony 
with  the  whole  of  the  connected  system  of  types,  than  this 
view  ?  In  particular  the  types  of  the  natural  creation,  even 
before  Adam  had  been  created  or  sinned,  clearly  indicate 
the  idea  of  ruin,  already  caused,  to  be  repaired ;  disorder 
and  confusion,  already  existing,  to  be  restored  to  order 
and  symmetry  ;  a  moral  kingdom  to  be  created  out  of  the 
elements  of  chaos.  According  to  the  view  now  given,  the 
same  idea  is  carried  out  in  the  transactions  in  Eden.  By 
the  sentence  of  temporal  death  through  Adam,  is  typically 
indicated  the  fallen  condition  of  the  materials  of  the  future 
race ;  but  it  is  so  indicated  as  to  point  the  eye  to  a  coming 
Redeemer,  by  whom  unnumbered  millions  shall  be  restored. 
Tims  we  no  longer  seem  to  open  the  history  of  earth  in  the 
grave-yard  of  a  newly -fallen  world,  but  to  hear  a  voice  from 
heaven  proclaiming  aloud,  "  Millions  of  souls  already  fallen 
shall  rise  to  endless  life,  and  the  reign  of  confusion  and 
death  shall  end.  A  great  deliverer  shall  come,  through 
whom  unnumbered  hosts  of  the  fallen  shall  be  justified,  and 
raised  to  reign  on  thrones  of  glory  in  everlasting  life. 
This  system  shall  add  no  new  sinner  to  the  universe,  but 
millions  already  fallen  it  shall  restore,  and  of  those 
who  remain  unreclaimed  it  shall  forever  destroy  the  malig 
nant  power." 

The  foundation,  then,  of  all  the  fatal  errors  which  have 
sprung  out  of  this  passage,  is  the  assigning  to  the  word 
death  a  spiritual  sense,  and  giving  a  causative  power  to  a 
typical  sequence,  designed  merely  to  illustrate  and  enforce 
truths  already  evolved  and  established,  and  not  to  be  the 
foundation  of  an  immense  system  of  scholastic  theology. 

The  depravity  of  the  human  race  Paul  had  already  fully 
and  abundantly  proved  by  its  own  appropriate  evidence, 
36 


422  CONFLICT   OP  AGES. 

and  the  great  system  of  justification  by  faith  in  the  Saviour 
he  had  fully  unfolded  and  established. 

Enraptured  with  its  glory,  the  thought  strikes  his  mind, 
that,  even  in  the  darkest  hour,  this  glorious  consummation 
was  fully  before  the  divine  mind,  and  was  most  strikingly 
foreshadowed  even  in  the  opening  scene  of  the  great  drama. 
Through  one  man  a  condemning  sentence  fell  on  the  whole 
human  race,  and  has  ever  since  gone  into  execution,  from 
age  to  age.  In  all  lands  and  over  all  generations  death  ha? 
reigned.  So,  in  glorious  antithesis,  through  one  has  a  sen 
tence  of  acquittal  come  to  all  who  believe,  and  a  free  gift  of 
divine  grace  abounding  to  eternal  life.  For  one  offence 
that  sentence  came  and  death  reigned,  but  by  this  grace 
offences  innumerable  are  forgiven  and  endless  life  is  restored. 

All  this  is  merely  the  amplification  and  enforcement  of 
striking  truths  by  typical  illustration.  It  is  the  very 
genius  and  spirit  of  Paul.  This  part  of  the  system  he  pene 
trated  more  deeply  and  illustrated  more  fully  than  any  of 
the  sacred  writers. 

Does  any  one  ask  for  another  example  in  which  Paul 
attempts  to  illustrate  and  enforce  a  logical  argument  by 
typical  illustration  7  Turn  to  his  epistle  to  the  Galatians. 
In  ch.  8  and  4  he  argues  at  length  the  great  question  of 
justification  by  faith,  and  the  release  of  Christians  from  the 
Mosaic  law ;  and,  having  proved  his  points  logically,  he 
illustrates  and  enforces  by  a  type,  taken  from  two  wives  of 
Abraham, —  one  bond,  the  other  free, —  and  their  two  sons, 
the  bondage  of  the  system  of  Moses  and  the  freedom  of  the 
system  of  Christ.  In  his  epistle  to  the  Corinthians  and 
Ephesians,  and  especially  to  the  Hebrews,  he  brings  out 
from  his  full  stores  abundant  illustrations  of  this  kind  ;  sc 
that  nothing  can  be  more  after  the  manner  of  Paul  than  to 
illustrate  in  this  way. 


ADDITIONAL   EVIDENCE.  423 

And,  now,  there  is  need  of  no  force,  no  violence ;  all  is 
free,  natural  and  easy,  if  we  interpret  the  passage  in  this 
way.  Even  without  a  very  powerful  reason  in  the  nature 
of  things,  this  mode  of  interpretation  would  commend  itself 
as  the  most  suitable  and  natural ;  for  it  grows  directly  out 
of  the  facts  of  the  case,  and  out  of  the  spirit  of  Paul. 

But,  when  we  look  at  the  moral  aspects  of  the  case,  the 
evidence  is  augmented  beyond  all  estimation.  If  the  charac 
ter  of  God  is  of  any  value,  if  the  division  of  the  human 
mind  and  of  society  against  God  and  itself  is  any  evil,  and 
if  its  perfect  harmony  with  God  is  at  all  to  be  desired,  then 
are  we  not  authorized  and  required  utterly  to  reject  an  in 
terpretation  at  war  with  every  principle  of  honor  and  right, 
and  to  adopt  one  that  removes  every  dark  cloud  from  the 
character  of  God,  presents  him  in  his  true  glory,  and  pre 
pares  the  way  for  a  full  reunion  of  the  human  race  to  him 
in  sweet  and  unmingled  love  7 

NOTE  ON  PAGE  420.  —  Compare  these  passages  with  the  remarks  in  the 
last  chapter  on  Heb.  2  :  7—9.  1  Cor.  15  :  27,  28.  Eph.  1  :  22,  23. 


CHAPTER   X. 

0 1 

CASE      OF     MELCHISEDEC. 

BY  reviewing  the  argument  thus  far,  it  will  be  seen  that 
the  state  of  the  case  is  this  :  That,  according  to  the  princi 
ples  of  equity  and  honor,  the  assumption  that  the  sinfulness 
and  ruined  condition  of  the  human  race  were  caused  by  the 
sin  of  Adam  is  liable  to  unanswerable  objections ;  that  it 
has  held  its  ground  only  by  the  force  of  a  supposed  assertion 
of  God  ;  but  that,  on  closer  examination,  it  appears  that 
there  is  no  evidence  that  God  has  ever  made  such  an  asser 
tion.  Of  course,  the  assumption  is  left  defenceless,  to  en 
counter  the  full  weight  of  the  reprobation  of  the  principles 
which  it  outrages,  and  to  perish  before  them. 

But  there  may  be  those  whose  associations  have  so  long 
connected  a  causative  significance  with  the  language  concern 
ing  Adam,  that  they  cannot  at  once  reduce  it  to  a  mere  de 
scription  of  the  appearance  of  things,  as  presented  by  a  typical 
sequence  designed  for  an  illustration  and  foreshadowing  of  the 
coming  Messiah.  They  may  even  be  affected  by  it  as  if  it 
were  a  kind  of  irreverent  treatment  of  the  word  of  God, 
adapted  to  enervate  its  force  and  empty  it  of  its  meaning. 

If  any  feel  thus,  it  can  be  only  because  they  have  with 
out  reason  based  too  great  consequences  on  these  words,  and 
have  never  been  accustomed  to  notice  how  very  common 
and  how  highly  approved  is  this  very  mode  of  interpretation 


CASE    OF   MELCHISEDEC.  425 

with  reference  to  the  language  applied  to  other  types.  I 
will  illustrate  my  meaning  by  a  single  case.  We  will  sup 
pose  that  things  had  taken  such  a  course  that  a  doctrine 
which  was  regarded  of  fundamental  moment  had  been 
formed  concerning  Melchisedec,  purporting  that  he  was  not 
a  mortal,  but  a  self-existent  and  eternal  person.  We  will 
also  suppose  that  on  this  doctrine  great  practical  questions 
depended. 

Here  great  consequences  would  depend  upon  an  unsure 
basis ;  and  yet,  so  far  as  words  are  concerned,  no  doctrine 
admits  of  easier  and  more  irresistible  proof.  Is  it  not  ex 
pressly  said  of  him  (Heb.  7  :  3)  that  he  is  "  without  father, 
without  mother,  without  genealogy,  having  neither  begin 
ning  of  days  nor  end  of  life,  but  abiding  a  priest  forever, 
like  unto  the  Son  of  God"?  Is  he  not,  v.  8,  contrasted 
with  men  who  receive  tithes  and  yet  die,  as  being  one  of 
whom  it  is  witnessed  that  he  liveth  ?  What  can  be 
stronger  than  this  language,  so  far  as  the  form  is  concerned  ? 
And  yet,  the  large  majority  of  the  most  judicious  comment 
ators  hold  that  he  was  a  mortal  man,  who  had  a  father  and 
a  mother,  and  was  born  and  lived  and  died  like  other  men. 

On  what  principles,  then,  do  they  interpret  this  language, 
so  strong  and  so  definite,  so  as  to  consist  with  these  views  ? 
They  adopt  this  principle, —  that,  since  Melchisedec  was  a 
type  of  the  coming  Messiah,  the  language  of  Paul  concern 
ing  him  is  to  be  interpreted  as  having  reference  to  the 
appearance  of  things,  as  providentially  ordered.  It  was 
so  ordered  that  there  is  on  record  no  account  of  the  parents, 
birth,  genealogy,  life  or  death,  of  Melchisedec.  As  we 
look  at  the  picture  of  him  presented  by  the  scripture,  none 
of  these  things  appear  on  the  canvas,  and  therefore  as  a 
type  he  is  spoken  of  as  without  them.  This  is  but  one  in 
stance  of  the  great  law,  that,  in  speaking  of  a  large  part  of 
86* 


126  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

the  types  of  the  Bible,  we  regard  merely  the  appearance  of 
things,  and  speak  accordingly.  Even  if  this  view  of  the 
statements  of  Paul  is  regarded  by  any  as  not  correct  in  the 
particular  case  of  Melchisedec,  it  yet  shows  how  clearly 
the  great  body  of  interpreters  recognize  the  truth  of  the 
law  itself.  Calvin,  in  his  notes  on  Heb.  7 :  3,  states  the 
principles  of  interpretation  in  this  case  with  his  usual 
brevity  and  felicity.  "  No  doubt  Melchisedec  had  parents  ; 
but  Paul  is  not  here  looking  at  him  as  a  private  indi 
vidual,  but  as  representing  Christ.  Therefore  he  allows 
himself  to  see  nothing  in  him  except  what  "is  recorded  in 
the  scripture.  And,  since  the  Holy  Spirit  introduces  a  most 
distinguished  king  of  that  age,  and  says  nothing  concerning 
his  birth,  and  afterwards  made  no  record  of  his  death, 
is  it  not,  as  it  were,  a  figurative  exhibition  of  his 
eternal  existence?  But  that  which  was  thus  shadowed 
forth  by  Melchisedec  exists  in  reality  in  Christ.  There 
fore  we  should  content  ourselves  with  this  common-sense 
view, —  that,  whilst  the  scripture  represents  Melchisedec  to 
us  as  if  it  were  delineating  in  a  picture  one  who  was  never 
born  and  never  died,  it  implies  that  Christ  has  in  reality 
neither  beginning  nor  end  of  existence.  Here  Melchisedec 
is  not  considered  in  his  private  and  personal  character,  but 
only  as  a  sacred  type  of  Christ."  He  repeats  the  same 
principles  with  reference  to  verse  8. 

Barnes,  in  his  notes,  clearly  sets  forth  and  defends  simi 
lar  principles  of  interpretation.  "There  was  no  record 
made  of  the  name  either  of  his  father,  his  mother,  or  any 
of  his  posterity.  He  stood  alone.  It  is  simply  said  that 
such  a  man  came  out  to  meet  Abraham,  and  that  is  the 
first  and  the  last  that  we  hear  of  him  and  of  his  family." 
Of  the  expression,  "  having  neither  beginning  of  days  nor 
end  of  life,"  he  says,  "The  obvious  meaning  of  the  phrase 


CASE    OF   MELCHISEDEC.  427 

is,  that  ',n  the  records  of  Moses  neither  the  beginning  nor 
the  close  of  his  life  is  mentioned.  It  is  not  said  when  he 
was  born,  or  when  he  died ;  nor  that  he  was  born,  or  that 
he  died."  Further,  he  says  that  these  facts  would  lead 
those  who  should  read  Psalm  110  "to  the  conclusion  that 
the  Messiah  was  to  resemble  Melchisedec  in  some  such 
points  as  these"  On  v.  8,  in  which  Melchisedec  is  con 
trasted  with  priests  who  die,  as  one  "of  whom  it  is  wit 
nessed  that  he  liveth."  he  says,  "  the  fair  and  obvious 
meaning  is,  that  all  the  record  we  have  of  Melchisedec  is, 
that  he  was  alive  ;  or,  as  Grotius  says,  the  record  is  merely 
that  he  lived.  We  have  no  mention  of  his  death.  From 
anything  that  the  record  shows,  it  might  appear  that  he 
continued  to  live  on,  and  did  not  die."  Others,  as 
Kuinoel,  refer  the  assertions  of  the  passage  rather  to  the 
origin  and  close  of  the  priestly  life  of  Melchisedec,  as  left 
without  record ;  but  still  they  retain  the  same  general  prin 
ciple,  that  the  apostle,  in  speaking  of  the  typical  appearance 
of  things,  uses  language  which  is  expressive  of  the  reality 
of  the  things  represented.  Indeed,  all  who  hold  that  Mel 
chisedec  wTas  a  man,  who  was  born,  lived  and  died,  as 
other  men,  as  Stuart,  Bloomfield,  Macknight,  Rosenmul- 
ler,  Scott,  Henry,  Doddridge,  and,  indeed,  the  great  body  of 
commentators,  are  obliged  to  occupy  this  ground.  Of  this 
opinion  concerning  Melchisedec,  Stuart  says  that  it  "lies 
upon  the  face  of  the  sacred  record  in  Gen.  14  and  in  Heb. 
7 ;  and  it  is  the  only  one  which  can  be  defended  on  any 
tolerable  grounds  of  interpretation." 

Notice  now  the  strength  of  this  case.  How  clear  is  the 
verbal  statement  that  Melchisedec  had  neither  father  nor 
mother,  neither  beginning  of  days  nor  end  of  life  ;  and  that, 
in  contrast  with  dying  men,  he  liveth  and  abideth  a  priest 
continually.  Yet,  as  he  was  a  type,  the  main  body  of  com- 


£28  CONFLICT  OF  AGES. 

mentators  agree  that  he  was  a  mere  mortal  man,  who  was 
born  and  died  like  all  others;  and  that  the  lan^ua^e  is 

7  O         O 

taken  from  and  designed  to  set  forth  merely  the  typical 
appearance  of  the  recorded  events  of  his  life,  so  as  to  illus 
trate  the  great  antitype  whom  God  by  these  providential 
arrangements  in  that  early  age  foreshadowed. 

In  this  case  we  have,  although  in  another  form,  a  striking 
illustration  and  confirmation  of  the  great  principle  that  sus 
tains  my  exposition  of  the  passage  in  Romans.  It  is  that, 
in  speaking  of  typical  sequences  as  if  they  were  causative. 
we  speak  according  to  the  appearance  of  things.  On  the 
same  principle  we  speak  of  Melchisedec.  Hence  it  is 
evident  that  the  same  principle  is  at  the  bottom  ot  this 
mode  of  speaking  which  I  have  set  forth  as  underlying 
other  types,  and  which  all  men  recognize  in  their  common 
modes  of  speech.  We  have  seen  how  strongly  numerous 
writers  have  asserted  that  the  brazen  serpent  healed  those 
who  looked  at  it.  Yet,  in  fact,  it  did  not  heal  them  at  all ; 
it  only  appeared  so  to  do.  Their  language,  therefore,  ex 
presses  the  typical  appearance  of  the  case,  as  if  it  were  a 
reality.  It  expresses  a  sequence  of  apparent  causation,  as 
if  it  were  real  causation.  The  same  is  true  in  those  numer 
ous  cases  where  sacrifices  are  said  to  make  atonement  for 
sins.  So.  also,  in  the  case  of  Adam. 

Do  I,  then,  evacuate  the  language  concerning  Adam  of  its 
proper  and  scriptural  force,  when  I  apply  to  it  this  same 
all-pervading  and  divinely-sanctioned  principle  ?  Do  I  not 
rather  restore  it,  from  a  very  injurious  perversion,  to  its 
proper  and  scriptural  sense  ?  Do  I  not  again  bring  it  into 
a  true  harmony  with  the  general  analogy  of  the  word  of 
God? 

Nor  on  this  ground  will  the  language  lose  its  proper 
power  and  influence  on  the  human  mind.  The  typical  sys- 


CASE    OF   MELCHISEDEC.  429 

tern  of  the  Old  Testament,  by  its  appeals  to  the  imagination, 
by  its  illustrative  power,  and  by  its  prophetic  significance,  is 
peculiarly  adapted  to  interest  and  affect  the  mind.  All  ex 
perience  shows  it.  Place  this  passage  on  the  same  ground 
with  the  sacrifices,  the  brazen  serpent,  and  other  types,  and 
exclude  from  it  all  necessity  of  solving  any  absurd  and  im 
possible  problem  in  morals,  metaphysics  or  natural  genera 
tion, —  remove  from  it  those  dark  shadows  of  injustice  which 
hang  over  it  as  it  is  commonly  understood, —  let  it  stand 
simply  as  an  early  sublime  and  beautiful  type  of  the  coming 
Messiah,  —  and  it  will  have  a  joyous  fulness  of  meaning,  and 
exert  a  thrilling  moral  power  unknown  and  unimagined 
before.  No  dense  clouds  of  injustice  will  darken  the 
character  of  God,  and  involve  the  universe  in  lurid  shades  ; 
but  the  sun  of  righteousness  will  be  seen,  in  full-orbed  glory, 
pouring  upon  this  dark  world  the  refulgent  rays  of  divine 
wisdom  and  of  redeeming  grace  ! 


CHAPTER   XI. 

\/  THE     COMPLETION    OF    THE    PICTURE. 

THE  training  of  the  mind  which  fits  for  typical  interpre 
tation  has  of  late  very  extensively  fallen  out  of  use.  It 
may  be  a  reaction  caused  by  previous  indiscretion  and 
excess.  Yet,  whatever  its  cause,  it  is  an  evil.  It  unfits  us 
for  understanding  Paul.  Though  he  was  a  logician,  he  was 
not  a  mere  logician.  He  had  an  imagination  also,  and  this 
he  used  in  vividly  representing  to  himself  the  typical  pic 
tures  of  the  T)ld  Testament.  Upon  these  he  gazed  with 
/;  delight,  just  as  we  gaze  on  a  picture,  a  statue,  or  any  other 
finished  product  of  the  fine  arts.  But  his  feelings  were 
deeper  than  any  that  such  products  of  human  skill  can 
cause  ;  for  he  saw  in  these  pictures  the  products  of  divine 
skill  and  foreknowledge,  reflecting  light  even  from  amid  the 
darkness  of  the  remotest  antiquity  upon  those  glorious  pur 
poses  of  redeeming  love,  the  magnitude  and  glory  of  which 
filled,  enraptured  and  overwhelmed,  his  soul.  These  great 
purposes  he  developed  on  appropriate  occasions  by  intellect 
ual  processes  which  will  bear  the  scrutiny  of  the  keenest 
logical  analysis.  Hence  Paul  has  ever  been  the  favorite  of 
logical,  generalizing,  systematizing  minds. 

But,  when  he  undertook  to  pour  the  illuminating  power  of 
his  imagination  upon  these  great  truths  by  means  of  typi 
cal  pictures,  it  was  a  process  of  entirely  another  kind. 


THE    COMPLETION    OF   THE    PICTURE.  431 

Such  pictures  were  not  made  for  logical  analysis,  but  to  be 
ga.zed  upon  as  a  whole,  and  as  merely  illustrative  pictures. 
True  it  is  that  Paul  reasons  from  these  pictures.  He  did 
so  in  the  case  of  Melchisedec  ;  but  he  reasons  from  them  as 
from  pictures.  He  reasons  that  that  which,  viewed  as  a 
divine  combination  of  acts  or  events,  they  foreshadow,  must 
exist,  more  fully  and  perfectly  developed,  in  the  antitype. 
Calvin,  in  a  happy  hour,  clearly  saw  and  distinctly  announced 
these  principles  in  the  case  of  Melchisedec ;  but  they  are 
no  less  true  and  important  in  all  similar  cases.  If  any  man, 
then,  would  be  a  good  interpreter  of  Paul,  he  must  be  able 
to  conceive  of  and  to  reproduce  in  himself  the  apostle's  men 
tal  habits,  with  reference  to  typical  illustrations.  He  must 
learn  to  look  upon  the  Old  Testament  as  Paul  looked  upon 
it,  and  to  reproduce  in  imagination  all  its  scenes  and  parts 
as  he  reproduced  them.  Nor  must  he,  as  some  do,  in  a 
patronizing  way  defend  and  excuse  it,  as  the  result  of  his 
Rabbinical  training,  and  fitted,  perhaps,  to  benefit  the  Jews, 
although  to  us,  properly  enough,  it  seems  strange  and  un 
worthy  of  the  serious  notice  of  the  logical  minds  of  the  emir 
nent  scholars  of  the  present  age.  Why  should  this  par 
ticular  mode  of  exercising  the  imagination  be  despised  as 
visionary  and  devoid  of  solidity,  simply  because  it  cannot  be 
reduced  to  the  categories  and  syllogisms  of  Aristotle  1  Has 
the  European  world  in  general  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
similes,  and  metaphors,  and  comparisons,  and  other  rhetori 
cal  figures,  for  purposes  of  illustration  and  impression,  are 
of  no  practical  utility  ;  and  that  they  are  unworthy  of  the 
notice  of  logical  minds,  because  they  cannot  be  analyzed, 
and  stated  in  syllogistic  form?  Why,  then,  should  that 
exercise  of  the  imagination  by  types,  which  inspiration  has 
peculiarly  honored  and  sanctioned,  be  singled  out  for  rejec 
tion  and  contempt  ?  On  this  subject  there  must  be  a  reac- 


432  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

tion.  Indeed,  it  has  begun;  for  Olshausen  has  well 
remarked,  that  uthe  elements  of  forgotten  typology  are 
becoming  more  and  more  recognized,  and  cannot,  consist 
ently  with  truly  historical  exposition,  be  overlooked  in  the 
New  Testament." 

Moreover,  in  the  able  work  of  Fairbairn,  —  in  my  opinion 
the  ablest  of  the  age  on  this  topic, —  we  see  some  of  the 
mature  results  of  this  reactionary  movement,  caused,  I  can 
not  doubt,  by  the  returning  influences  of  the  divine  spirit, 
after  the  great  continental  apostasy. 

The  great  thing,  in  a  true  interpretation  of  the  passage 
under  consideration,  if  we  would  sympathetically  feel  the 
force  of  all  its  parts,  is,  to  reproduce  in  our  minds  the  typi 
cal  picture,  upon  which  Paul  gazed  as  he  wrote,  and  in 
which  he  saw  foreshadowed  the  coming  of  the  second  Adam, 
the  great  Redeemer  of  the  human  race.  We  shall  then  be 
able  to  feel  the  force  of  the  passage,  even  in  its  minutest 
details.  Let  us,  then,  as  completely  as  in  the  case  of  Mel- 
chisedec,  divest  ourselves  of  the  idea  that  we  are  approach 
ing  the  solution  of  any  mere  logical  problem,  and  arouse 
our  imaginations  to  gaze  upon  the  scenes  and  persons  of 
past  ages,  as  they  rose  before  the  mind  of  the  inspired 
apostle.  Having  surveyed  these,  then  let  us  turn  and  in 
the  light  of  them  read  his  words. 

The  fundamental  fact  which  seems  to  have  risen  before 
the  eye  of  the  apostle  was,  that  death  entered  this  world 
not  as  an  event  natural  and  necessary  to  man,  but  as  a 
penalty  inflicted  by  the  decision  of  a  judge,  in  view  of  a 
violated  law.  The  sentence  still  stood  recorded  on  the 
sacred  page.  He  saw  accordingly  the  great  ancestor  of  the 
human  race,  as  a  condemned  criminal,  yielding  himself  up  to 
the  sentence  of  death.  "Dust  thou  art,  and  unto  dust  shalt 
thou  return." 


THE    COMPLETION    OF   THE    PICTURE.  433 

In  this,  however,  there  was  nothing  to  excite  surprise ;  for 
he  had,  by  a  definite  act,  violated  a  law  clearly  revealed, 
and  sanctioned  in  his  hearing  with  the  penalty  of  death. 

But  of  none  of  his  descendants  was  it  true  that  they  had 
in  person  violated  the  same  law  that  Adam  did,  or  any 
other  of  the  same  kind  and  sanctioned  by  the  same  penalty. 
Why,  then,  should  the  same  sentence  of  death  be  inflicted 
on  them  ?  They  had  not  sinned  after  the  similitude  of  his 
transgression ;  —  why,  then,  should  they  endure  the  same 
penalty  1 

Once  more,  then,  he  looks  at  the  sentence  in  all  its  parts. 
The  evils  of  all  kinds  therein  denounced  he  sees  coming 
ever  since  on  all  men.  The  form  of  the  language  is  as 
much  adapted  to  include  all  men  as  God's  first  address  to 
the  new-created  pair,  which  was  obviously  meant  for  all 
men.  What  reason,  then,  is  there  to  doubt  that  the  sen 
tence  of  death  was  designed  to  include  all  men  ?  There  I* 
none.  It  is  plain  that  when  Adam  was  sentenced  to  death 
all  men  were  sentenced  with  him,  and  through  his  offence. 
It  is  plain  that  by  the  offence  of  one  man  judgment  came 
upon  all  men  to  condemnation.  Plainly,  then,  the  aspect 
of  the  whole  transaction  was  as  if  all  men  were  held  guilty 
of  Adam's  sin,  and  punished  for  it.  This  is  the  great  typi 
cal  picture  before  his  mind,  and  according  to  this  aspect  of 
the  case  he  speaks. 

But,  lo  !  on  the  other  hand,  he  sees  a  glorious,  a  divine 
personage  in  human  form  ;  in  the  midst  of  trials  and  tempt 
ations  of  the  utmost  intensity,  he  still  is  faithful  to  God. 
He  is  still  obedient,  yea,  even  unto  death,  the  death  of 
the  cross.  Around  him  he  sees  gathered  a  multitude  which 
no  man  can  number,  of  every  age  and  clime.  With  him 
they  are  one  by  a  new  life, —  the  life  of  faith.  Through 
this  faith  they  apprehend  and  receive  the  pardon  even  of 
37 


434  CONFLICT  OF  AGES.  v 

the  greatest  sins,  and  the  merits  of  his  obedience  in  the 
infinite  and  gracious  rewards  of  endless  life.  This,  then,  is 
the  second  Adam ;  and  now  his  all-embracing  thought  is,  as 
all  who  sustained  a  material  connection  with  the  first  Adam 
were  through  his  disobedience  condemned  and  sentenced 
to  death,  so  through  the  second  Adam  all  who  sustain  a 
spiritual  connection  with  him  shall  be  pardoned  and  restored 
to  endless  life. 

But,  now,  lest  any  Judaizing  opponent  should  suggest 
that  the  law  of  Moses  is  the  ground  of  the  alleged  condem 
nation,  he  looks  upon  the  picture  again,  and  sees  a  long 
interval  during  which  it  did  not  exist.  He  sees,  moreover, 
that  during  this  long  period  there  was  no  law  like  that  of 
Adam,  sanctioned  by  the  same  penalty,  which  had  been  vio 
lated  by  man,  and  yet  sentence  of  death  came  upon  them 
all.  It  must,  therefore,  have  come,  as  before  stated,  through 
the  offence  of  Adam,  and  the  sentence  then  passed. 

The  sense  of  the  whole  passage  I  will  now  endeavor  to 
set  forth  in  a  paraphrase,  remarking  that  I  shall  substi 
tute  for  sin,  sinned,  &c.,  in  vs.  12,  19,  what  has  previously 
been  proved  to  be  their  sense, —  that  is,  liability  to  punish 
ment  or  a  state  of  condemnation, —  and  also  complete  the 
comparison  in  v.  12. 

12.  Wherefore  as  by  one  man  that  universal  subjection 
to  a  condemning  sentence  for  sin,  under  which  men  now  are, 
was  introduced  into  the  world,  and  death  thereby  as  the 
threatened  penalty,  and  thus  through  one  man  death  passed 
upon  all,  because  through  him  all  were  involved  in  a  com 
mon  condemnation  as  sinners,  even  so  are  all  who  believe 
justified  and  restored  to  eternal  life  through  Christ. 

13.  It  is  of  no  avail  to  suggest  that  this  state  of  condem 
nation  has  not  arisen  from  the  offence  of  Adam,  but  from 
the  violation  of  the  law  of  Moses  by  each  man  personally ; 


THE    COMPLETION   OF   THE   PICTURE.  435 

for  it  existed  in  the  world  before  that  law  was  given,  and 
such  liability  to  punishment  could  not  be  ascribed  to  men 
whilst  the  law  was  not  in  existence  on  which  it  depended. 

14.  And  yet  death  reigned  over  all  men  from  Adam  to 
Moses ;  even  although  they  had  not,  as  was  the  case  with 
Adam,  personally  broken  that  original  law  which  threatened 
this  death  as  its  penalty,  or  any  other  like  it.     It  is  plain, 
therefore,  that  the  sentence  condemning  them  to  death  did 
come  on  all  men  through  the  transgression  of  that  one  man, 
Adam,  who  is  the  type  of  the  coming  Redeemer. 

15.  But  how  great  is  the  disparity  and  contrast  between 
the  results  of  the  offence  of  Adam  and  the  gracious  interposi 
tion  of  Christ ;   for,  if  through  the  offence  of  one  man  the 
multitudes  of  the  human  race  have  been  sentenced  to  so 
great  an  evil  as  death,  much  more  have  the  forgiving  love 
of  God,  and  the  gra,cious  gifts  resulting  therefrom  through 
the  one  man  Jesus  Christ,  abounded  unto  the  multitudes 
of  the  redeemed. 

16.  There  is  also  another  dissimilitude  between  the  trans 
actions  in  the  case  of  Adam's  sin  and  the  free  gift  of  Christ ; 
for  the  condemning  sentence  took  its  rise  from  one  offence, 
and  resulted  in  condemnation, — but  the  free  gift  has  respect 
to  many  offences,  and  results  in  justification. 

17.  For  if  by  one  man's  offence  death  reigned  by  one, 
much  more  shall  they  who  receive  abundance  of  grace  and 
of  the  gift  of  righteousness  reign  in  life  by  one,   Jesus 
Christ. 

18.  Therefore,  to  resume  the  general  view  with  which  I 
began,  and  which  I  have  in  some  respects  modified  and 
limited, —  as  by  the  offence  of  one  judgment  came  upon  all 
men  to  condemnation,  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one 
the  free  gift  came  upon  all  who  believe,  unto  justification  of 
life. 


436  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

19.  For  as  by  the  disobedience  of  one  man  many  T?ere 
subjected  to  a  condemning  sentence,  so  by  the  obedience  of 
one  shall  many  be  justified. 

It  will  be  seen  that  in  verse  12  I  make  the  word  law 
refer  in  both  instances  to  the  Mosaic  law.  Any  one  can  see 
that  the  last  clause  of  the  verse  can  be  properly  translated 
"liability  to  punishment  is  not  imputed  when  the  law  does 
not  exist,"  that  is,  before  it  exists.  This  is  said  on  the 
supposition  that  the  liability  in  question  had  been  supposed 
to  spring  from  a  violation  of  the  law  of  Moses.  This  would 
involve  the  absurdity  of  liability  to  punishment  by  a  law 
before  it  exists.  In  accordance  with  this  view,  De  Wette 
translates  the  words  ^  oWo«  vtuov,  "where  the  law  is 
not."  and  says  that  the  statement  of  the  apostle  "  is  by  no 
means  a  universal  position,"  but  "  is  spoken  respecting  the 
time  before  the  law  of  Moses." 

It  appears,  also,  that  those  "  who  had  not  sinned  after  the 
similitude  of  Adam's  transgression  "  are  not  a  peculiar  part 
of  these  who  lived  before  the  law.  Prof.  Hodge  alleges 
that  this  is  intimated  by  the  word  "  even."  But  we 
often  use  that  word  to  set  forth  a  striking  common  charac 
teristic,  to  be  found  in  all  of  whom  we  speak.  Thus  we  say 
Christ  died  for  all  men,  even  for  his  enemies,  who  had  for 
feited  all  their  rights  by  a  guilty  rebellion.  So,  although 
not  one  of  those  who  lived  from  Adam  to  Moses  had  ever 
sinned  as  Adam  did,  still  death  reigned  even  over  them. 
So  the  passage  was  understood  by  Chrysostom,  when  he 
said  that  "  all  men  were  subjected  by  Adam  to  death, 
although  they  did  not  (like  him)  eat  of  the  tree." 

Let  it  now  be  borne  in  mind  that,  with  reference  to  con 
demnation  through  Adam,  as  truly  as  in  the  case  of  Mel- 
chisedec,  we  are  authorized  to  believe  that  the  ground 
work  of  the  whole  passage  is  typical  illustration  by  a 


THE    COMPLETION    OF   THE    PlOTUilE.  437 

reference  solely  to  the  aspect  of  things  as  they  were  provi 
dentially  arranged  by  God  to  meet  the  eye,  and  not  to  the 
real  and  hidden  laws  of  causation  which  lie  beneath  this 
aspect. 

If  any  still,  through  the  force  of  old  associations,  do  not 
fully  see  the  propriety  and  inipressiveness  of  a  contrast 
between  natural  death  on  one  side,  and  spiritual  life  on 
the  other,  let  them  look  at  such  comparisons  as  these : 

As  by  the  brazen  serpent  a  healing  power  was  exerted 
on  all  who  looked  to  it,  so  by  Christ  is  a  divine  energy 
exerted  to  heal  all  who  look  to  him. 

Yet  let  it  not  be  supposed  that  there  is  a  perfect  cor 
respondence  in  the  two  cases.  For,  if  the  healing  power  of 
the  serpent  revealed  itself  in  delivering  sinners  from  natu 
ral  death,  who  merely  looked  to  it  by  the  bodily  eye,  how 
much  more  shall  the  healing  power  of  Christ  reveal  itself, 
in  averting  eternal  death  and  conferring  eternal  life  on 
all  who,  in  true  faith,  look  to  him  by  the  eye  of  the 
mind  !  Or  thus, 

As  beneath  the  protection  of  the  blood  sprinkled  upon 
their  door-posts  the  children  of  Israel  took  refuge,  and  thus 
escaped  the  ravages  of  death,  even  so  are  the  true  Israel 
of  God  defended  by  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ 
from  the  impending  perils  and  the  eternal  agonies  of  the 
second  death. 

But  how  unequal  are  the  things  thus  compared !  How 
small  was  the  value  or  the  power  of  the  blood  of  the  paschal 
lamb !  But,  if  even  this  could  defend  from  impending 
death,  how  much  more  shall  the  blood  of  the  divine  and 
eternal  Son  of  God,  the  true  atoning  Lamb,  who  taketh 
away  the  sin  of  the  world,  avert  the  higher  perils  of  true 
believers,  and  exalt  them  to  eternal  life  !  Or  thus, 

As  Aaron,  by  the  incense  which  ascended  from  his  cen- 
37* 


438  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

ser,  made  atonement  for  those  ancient  rebels,  whose  crimes 
had  excited  the  anger  of  God,  and  thus  averted  the  aveng 
ing  sentence  of  death,  even  so  Christ  by  his  atonement  and 
intercession  is  powerful  in  every  age  and  clime  to  atone  for 
rebellious  man,  and  to  avert  from  all  in  whose  behalf  he 
interposes  the  sentence  of  death. 

But  how  far  beneath  the  great  reality  was  the  prophetic 
adumbration !  For  the  intervention  of  Aaron  effected  but  a 
temporary  deliverance  from  the  stroke  of  death ;  but  the 
intercession  of  our  great  High  Priest  in  heaven  forever 
averts  the  second  death,  and  confers  eternal  life  on  all  for 
whom  he  intercedes. 

In  all  these  cases  the  comparison  proceeds  from  natural 
death  in  the  type  to  spiritual  life  in  the  antitype. 

Indeed,  the  apostle  Paul  has  given  us  a  most  striking 
typical  comparison  of  this  very  kind. 

' l  For  if  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  and  the  ashes  of 
a  heifer,  sprinkling  the  unclean,  sanctifieth  to  the  purifying 
of  the  flesh,  how  much  more  shall  the  blood  of  Christ,  who 
through  the  eternal  Spirit  offered  himself  without  spot  unto 
God,  purge  your  conscience  from  dead  works  to  serve  the 
living  God!" 


CHAPTER    XII. 

THE    ARGUMENT   REINFORCED. 

IN  the  general  statement  of  the  true  interpretation  of  the 
passage  under  consideration,  given  in  the  third  chapter  of 
this  book,  I  adopted  the  view  of  the  Old  School  party,  that 
the  sense  of  the  passage  is  judicial,  relating  to  condemna 
tion  and  justification,  and  not  to  the  causation  of  sin  or 
holiness  in  the  human  race  ;  and  also  that  of  the  Greek 
church,  that  the  death  spoken  of  is  simply  natural  death. 

To  these  I  added  the  position  that,  in  the  case  of  Adam, 
the  type,  the  sequence,  was  not  causative,  but  merely  one 
of  apparent  causation  for  typical  purposes. 

The  truth  of  the  first  of  these  positions  has  been  rendered 
so  apparent  that  it  needs  no  further  confirmation.  But  it 
will  not  be  useless  to  add  some  additional  confirmations  of 
the  other  two.  For,  although  the  case  is  at  present  suffi 
ciently  clear,  were  there  no  uncommon  obstacles  to  the  per 
ception  of  the  truth,  yet,  considering  the  power  of  the 
association  of  ideas  and  of  habit,  and  the  tenacity  with 
which  the  human  mind  holds  on  to  established  opinions,  it 
is  better  to  err  by  excess  of  argument  than  by  a  relative 
deficiency, —  I  mean  a  deficiency  in  view  of  the  practical 
end  to  be  gained.  I  shall,  therefore,  subjoin  some  addi 
tional  considerations,  of  no  small  weight. 

It  will  be  seen  that  thus  far  I  have  gone  upon  the  ground 


440  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

that  it  is  as  consistent  with  the  laws  of  typical  illustration 
to  understand  the  word  death  to  mean  natural  death,  as  it 
is  to  give  it  the  broad  sense  which  includes  the  whole 
penalty  of  the  divine  law.  I  have  also  assumed  that  it  is  as 
consistent  with  those  laws  to  understand  a  merely  typical 
sequence  of  condemnation  by  the  sin  of  Adam,  as  to  under 
stand  a  causative  one.  Supposing  these  views  to  stand  on 
equal  grounds,  I  have  argued  in  the  first  case  from  the  facts 
of  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  the  second  from  the  laws  of 
equity  and  honor,  revealed  by  God  as  his  own  rule  of  con 
duct,  that  we  ought  to  understand  natural  death  and  a 
merely  typical  sequence  to  be  set  forth  in  the  passage. 

But  I  now  add  that  in  neither  case  do  the  two  modes  of 
interpretation,  in  fact,  stand  on  equal  grounds,  as  I  shall 
proceed  to  show. 

I  lay  down,  then,  the  position,  with  reference  to  the  first 
of  the  two  points  just  mentioned,  that  it  is  more  in  accord 
ance  with  the  true  laws  of  typical  illustration  that  there 
should  be  an  antithesis  of  natural  death  by  Adam,  and 
spiritual  life  by  Christ,  than  that  the  idea  of  death  should 
be  carried  into  the  spiritual  and  eternal  sphere.  For  the 
great  idea  of  the  Old  Testament  typology  is  to  illustrate  the 
things  of  the  eternal  and  spiritual  sphere  by  the  events  of 
this  life,  and  of  this  visible  material  system. 

So  Paul  expressly  states  the  matter,  in  the  ninth  chapter 
of  Hebrews.  The  system  of  types  was  "  of  this  creation," 
TuvTrjt  T$S  xnaetos  (v.  11).  The  great  realities  belonged  to 
the  invisible  spiritual  system.  By  the  great  law  of  analogy 
they  were  set  off  one  against  the  other,  as  the  typical  and 
the  anti typical.  I  do  not  say  that  the  type  and  the  anti 
type  are  never  in  the  same  sphere,  for  occasionally  they 
are.  But,  as  a  general  fact,  they  are  in  different  and  ana 
logical  spheres. 


THE   ARGUMENT   REINFORCED.  441 

Nor  has  this  great  law  escaped  the  notice  of  at  least  some 
of  the  writers  on  typology,  though  they  do  not  seem  to  have 
reflected  on  its  scope.  In  particular,  Fairbairn,  to  whose 
able  work  I  have  before  referred,  has  given  a  very  clear 
and  impressive  enunciation  of  this  law.  It  is  the  fifth  of 
his  series,  and  is  thus  stated  : 

"Another  rule  of  interpretation  arising  out  of  the  prin 
ciples  already  established,  and  necessary  to  be  borne  in 
mind  if  wre  would  give  an  enlightened  and  consistent 
view  of  typical  symbols  and  transactions;  is,  that  due 
regard  must  be  had  to  the  essential  difference  between 
the  nature  of  type  and  antitype.  For  as  the  exhibition 
of  divine  truth  contained  in  tke  former  was  given  on  a 
lower  stage,  or  by  means  only  of  carnal  and  earthly  con 
cerns,  in  applying  the  elements  of  truth,  so  taught,  to  the 
higher, —  that  is,  the  spiritual  and  heavenly  concerns  of  Mes 
siah's  kingdom. —  what  bore  immediate  respect  to  the  flesh  in 
the  one  must  be  understood  as  bearing  immediate  respect  to 
the  soul  in  the  other. —  while  in  the  one  temporal  interests 
only  appear,  their  counterpart  in  the  other  must  be  eternal 
interests  ;  in  short,  the  outward,  visible,  and  carnal  in  the 
type,  must  in  the  antitype  pass  into  %the  inward,  spiritual 
and  heavenly." 

This  rule,  he  very  properly  says,  enters  into  "  the  very 
vitals  of  the  subject."  He  admits  of  only  two  exceptions 
to  it  in  the  New  Testament,  and  he  contends  that  these  are 
rather  apparent  than  real. 

Yet,  notwithstanding  all  this,  he  is  so  fully  controlled  by 
the  common  views  of  the  case  of  Adam,  that  he  does  not  see 
that  he  extends  his  influence  into  the  spiritual  and  eternal 
sphere  as  truly  as  that  of  Christ.  According  to  his  own 
rule,  in  the  case  of  Adam,  "  temporal  interests  only  "  ought 
to  appear ;  "  their  counterpart  in  the  other  (Christ)  must  be 


442  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

eternal  interests;"  "  in  short,  the  outward,  visible  and  carnal 
in  the  type,  must,  in  the  antitype,  pass  into  the  inward, 
spiritual  and  heavenly."  If  we  limit  the  sequences  of 
Adam's  transgression,  with  the  Greek  church,  to  natural 
death,  then  we  do  observe  this  law ;  but,  if  we  extend  them 
to  the  spiritual  and  eternal  sphere,  then  we  violate  the  law ; 
and  it  is  a  law  which  enters  into  "  the  very  vitals  of  the 
subject" 

Nor  is  this  all :  if  we  thus  extend  the  idea  of  death, 
and  give  to  Adam  causative  power,  it  entirely  overloads  the 
type,  and  destroys  the  truth  of  the  apostle's  comparison. 
The  power  of  Adam,  in  the  spiritual  sphere,  to  produce 
eternal  death,  extends  to  all  the  race ;  and,  when  we  reflect 
that,  thus  far,  Christ  being  judge,  the  great  majority  have,  in 
fact,  perished,  and  that  forever,  the  effect  of  the  comparison 
is  that  of  an  anti-climax.  Adam  has,  in  fact,  destroyed 
more  than  Christ  has  saved ;  and  their  ruin  is  as  complete 
and  eternal  as  is  the  salvation  of  those  whom  Christ  saves. 
But,  if  we  suppose  that  Adam  has,  in  fact,  ruined  no  one  in 
the  spiritual  sphere,  but  that  the  sequence  of  death,  in  the 
natural  sphere,  upon  his  transgression,  is  a  designed  anti 
thetic  type  of  eternal  life  through  Christ,  then  the  anti 
type,  as  it  ought,  towers  above  the  type  in  its  true  spiritual 
magnitude  and  glory. 

In  addition  to  this,  if  death  is  taken  to  mean  the  full  and 
eternal  penalty  of  God's  law,  and  the  sequence  is  causative, 
then  the  penalty  of  Adam's  act  is  so  enormously  dispropor- 
tioned  to  its  demerit,  that  it  tends  to  make  the  contemplation 
unspeakably  painful,  and  to  confuse  all  our  ideas  of  justice 
and  honor.  If  a  penalty  is  enormously  disproportioned  to 
an  offence,  it  loses  all  its  power  as  a  penalty,  and  produces 
reaction  and  disgust,  if  not  indignation.  If  a  king,  because 
of  some  sin  of  a  viceroy,  of  which  his  subjects  were  entirely 


THE   ARGUMENT   REINFORCED.  443 

ignorant,  should  send  out  his  armies,  and  exterminate,  with 
extreme  torments,  every  man,  woman  and  child,  in  the  prov 
ince  of  that  viceroy,  and  then  should  proclaim  that  he  did 
it  to  show  his  indignation  against  sin,  in  view  of  its  enor 
mous  evils,  and  his  fixed  purpose  to  punish  it,  what  rational 
human  being  could  be  found  upon  whom  such  a  proceeding 
would  not  react,  and  rather  create  abhorrence  of  the  king's 
injustice,  than  of  the  viceroy's  sin  ?  And  yet  there  would 
not  be,  in  such  a  transaction,  one  millionth  part  of  the 
horror  and  the  injustice  that  is  involved  in  the  idea  of  an 
utter  forfeiture,  by  all  the  millions  of  the  human  race,  of 
the  favor  of  God,  and  their  exposure  to  his  frown,  and  to  all 
the  miseries  of  endless  damnation,  by  a  solitary  act  of  Adam, 
of  which  they  had  no  knowledge,  and  over  which  they  had 
no  control, —  and  which  forfeiture  actually  results  in  the 
endless  ruin  of  the  great  majority  of  them.  It  is  not  in 
the  power  of  human  language  to  express,  nor  of  the  human 
mind  to  conceive,  the  horror  and  injustice  of  such  a  proceed 
ing.  What,  then,  must  be  the  painful  and  confounding 
influence  of  retaining  such  a  view,  on  one  side  of  a  typical 
comparison  designed  to  set  forth  the  glories  of  redeeming 
love  !  How  must  it  confuse  our  ideas  of  justice  and  honor ! 
How  dark  and  gloomy  will  it  render  the  system  which  rests 
upon  it !  With  what  melancholy  shades  will  this  passage 
of  scripture  evermore  be  veiled ! 

But,  represent  this  system  as  a  remedy  for  evil  already 
existing,  let  it  ruin  none  and  save  unnumbered  millions, 
remove  from  Adam  the  idea  of  power  efficiently  to  cause 
evil  at  all,  let  the  judicial  sequence  of  natural  death  be 
ordained  as  a  type  to  illustrate,  by  antithesis,  eternal  life 
through  Christ,  and  I  do  not  know  any  passage  in  the  word 
of  God  which  combines  higher  elements  of  sublimity,  beauty, 
and  divine  glory. 


444  CONFLICT    OP    AGES. 

The  value  of  a  type  depends,  not  upon  the  existence  of 
causative  power  in  the  sequence,  but  upon  the  fact  that  God 
ordained  it  to  illustrate  some  great  and  glorious  truth,  and 
that  it  does  illustrate  it.  Hence,  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood 
of  the  paschal  lamb,  the  brazen  serpent,  the  incense  of 
Aaron,  lose  none  of  their  value  because  they  were  not  linked 
to  their  sequences  by  causative  power.  What  though  they 
did  not,  in  reality,  avert  natural  death  1  It  is  enough  that 
God  made  them  appear  to  do  it,  for  the  sake  of  illustrating 
the  real  power  of  Christ  to  avert  eternal  death.  So,  what 
though  it  be  true  that  the  sin  of  Adam  exerted  no  power  to 
injure  one  individual  of  the  human  race?  It  is  enough 
that  God  so  arranged  events  that,  apparently,  the  human 
race  was  sentenced  to  natural  death,  through  his  sin,  in 
order  to  make  a  great,  glorious  and  original  type  of  justifi 
cation  and  eternal  life  through  the  coming  Redeemer.  In 
this  way  it  has  its  legitimate  influence  and  its  full  power  as 
a  type.  But,  the  moment  you  load  it  down  with  a  causative 
power  to  produce  eternal  death,  you  transgress  the  true 
laws  of  typical  analogy,  veil  its  radiance  in  the  dense  clouds 
of  injustice,  and  utterly  destroy  its  legitimate  power. 

And  now  I  cannot  but  feel  that  I  have  adduced  sufficient 
reasons  to  induce  all  Christian  men,  who  love  the  honor  of 
God  and  the  good  of  man  more  than  any  or  all  other  in 
terests,  to  reject  the  common  interpretations  of  this  passage, 
and  to  adopt  that  which  I  have  proposed. 

I  know  full  well  the  strength  of  the  influence  of  Augus 
tine,  and  Calvin,  and  Edwards,  and  of  the  creeds  of  the 
Reformation.  I  know  the  power  of  national  churches,  of 
great  denominations,  and  of  great  teachers. 

But  I  know,  also,  that,  after  all,  these  things  are  but 
finite,  temporary  and  local.  God  only  is  infinite,  universal. 


THE   ARGUMENT   REINFORCED.  445 

eternal,  all-glorious,  and  worthy  of  universal  homage  and 
praise. 

Before  him  the  nations  are  as  a  drop  of  a  bucket,  and  are 
counted  as  the  small  dust  of  the  balance.  Yea,  all  nations 
in  his  sight  are  as  nothing,  and  they  are  counted  to  him  as 
less  than  nothing,  and  vanity.  He  poureth  contempt  upon 
princes ;  he  maketh  the  judges  of  the  earth  as  vanity.  He 
bloweth  upon  them,  and  they  wither,  and  the  whirlwind 
taketh  them  away  as  stubble. 

The  question  now  at  issue  does  not  so  much  concern  the 
honor  of  human  organizations  as  the  true  and  unclouded 
glory  of  this  great  God.  I  have  written  as  I  have,  because  I 
have  felt  in  my  inmost  soul,  and  with  deep  and  long-con 
tinued  sorrow,  that  He  is  deeply  dishonored,  and  the  energies 
of  his  kingdom  on  earth  are  fatally  paralyzed,  by  the  basis 
on  which  his  own  church  has  placed  his  greatest  and  most 
glorious  work,  the  divine  work  of  redeeming  love.  I  have 
believed,  and  therefore  have  I  spoken. 

If  it  were  seen  to  be  so,  then  there  would  be  but  one 
response  from  every  true  child  of  God.  If  his  honor  is  at 
stake,  all  else  must  give  way.  What  are  creeds,  institutions 
or  denominations,  in  comparison  with  him  for  whose  honor 
they  are  professedly  made,  and  for  whom,  alone,  they  avow 
a  desire  to  exist  ? 

But  the  great  turning  point  of  the  whole  question  will 
be,  Do  they,  in  fact,  dishonor  him  ? 

And  now,  as  before  him,  I  ask  attention  to  the  following 
considerations : 

The  first,  the  natural,  the  intuitive  convictions  of  the 
\mman  mind,  with  reference  to  the  commonly  alleged  deal 
ings  of  God  with  the  human  race  through  Adam,  are,  that 
they  are  dishonorable  and  unjust. 

That  this  is  so  has  been  confessed  ,by  men  than  whom 
38 


446  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

none  are  more  eminent  for  intellectual  power,  and  for  piety. 
Augustine,  Calvin,  Pascal  and  Watts,  have  virtually  or 
openly  confessed  it ;  Dr.  Woods,  Dr.  Hodge  and  Haldane, 
have  virtually  or  openly  confessed  the  same. 

That  they  are  so,  in  fact,  I  have  evinced  by  showing  that 
all  efforts  to  explain  and  defend  them  have  resulted  in  incon 
sistent  and  mutually  destructive  theories,  every  one  of  which 
has  been,  and  still  is,  condemned  by  some  large  portion  of 
the  true  church  of  God.  So  true  is  this,  that  Haldane  has 
declared  that  all  such  efforts  have  but  made  the  case  still 
worse,  and  that  it  is  our  duty  to  believe  on  the  naked  arid 
unexplained  word  of  God ;  and  that  this  must  be  the  final 
authority  in  the  case. 

But,  in  a  case  like  this,  are  we  to  take  for  granted  an 
interpretation  involving  such  consequences  ?  Or  is  it,  indeed, 
a  self-evident  interpretation?  History  does  not  seem  to 
imply  that  it  is  self-evident,  and  in  fact  it  is  not  so. 

I  have  shown,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  view  which  I 
advocate  is,  at  least,  as  consistent  with  the  laws  of  inter 
pretation  as  any  othei  .  and  that  from  the  facts  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  from  the  laws  of  honor  and  right,  there  is  a 
decided  preponderance  in  its  favor. 

I  have  next  shown  that  the  common  interpretations  are 
opposed  to  the  prevailing  and  almost  universal  laws  of 
typical  analogy ;  that  they  overload  the  type,  and  make  the 
passage  untrue ;  that  they  destroy  the  moral  power  of  God's 
displeasure  at  Adam's  sin,  by  exaggeration ;  and  that  they 
imprison,  suppress,  and  do  violence  to  the  deepest  convic 
tions  of  the  human  mind  against  dishonor  and  injustice, 
which  can  find  no  relief  till  they  have  been  expressed. 

I  allege  that  the  view  which  I  present  is  simple,  intelli 
gible,  eloquent,  sublime,  beautiful,  worthy  of  God,  k 


THE   ARGUMENT   REINFORCED.  447 

perfect  harmony  with  the  laws  of  language,  and,  in  particular, 
with  the  laws  of  typical  usage. 

But,  if  these  things  are  so,  can  any  one  fail  to  see  what 
the  conclusion  ought  to  be  ? 

I  know  that  the  result  is  momentous,  but  is  it  more  than 
God  deserves  ? 

At  all  events,  is  it  not  a  duty  thoroughly  to  reconsider 
this  whole  question,  until  a  position  can  be  found  that  shall 
so  present  the  great  work  of  redeeming  love  as  not  to  reflect 
deep  dishonor  on  the  character  of  God? 


CHAPTER    XIII. 

•  •  k 

SURVEY     OF     THE     ARGUMENT. 

IN  the  opening  chapter  of  this  book  I  remarked  that 
practically  the  whole  of  the  present  discussion  turns  more 
upon  the  interpretation  of  the  last  part  of  the  fifth  chapter 
of  Romans  than  upon  any  other  point.  For,  if  it  had  not 
been  for  the  belief  that  this  passage  teaches  such  a  doctrine 
of  forfeiture  as  I  have  considered  and  exposed, —  a  doctrine 
which,  in  the  judgment  of  Pascal,  appeared  obviously  impos 
sible  and  unjust, — it  could  never  have  gained  credence  or 
sustained  itself  for  a  single  hour ;  nor  would  it  have  ever 
been  believed  that  the  sin  of  Adam  did  or  could  in  any  way 
produce  the  terrific  depravity  which  has  been  exhibited  in 
this  world  ever  since  his  creation  and  fall. 

But,  so  long  as  it  has  been  supposed  that  God  has  asserted 
these  things,  it  has  been  felt  to  be  a  duty  to  overrule  even 
those  immutable  intellectual  and  moral  intuitions  which 
he  has  implanted  in  the  soul,  rather  than  to  distrust  his 
word. 

The  effect  of  this  has  been  to  paralyze  the  intellectual 
and  moral  energies  of  Christians  to  an  extent  of  which  no 
adequate  conception  has  as  yet  been  formed,  and  to  reduce 
them  to  a  state  of  lamentable  captivity  and  bondage.  For, 
though  not  in  close  confinement,  and  thus  cut  off  from  all 
action,  yet  they  have  been  hemmed  in  by  certain  tremendous 


SURVEY    OF   THE    ARGUMENT.  449 

intellectual  enclosures,  which  they  have  not  dared  to  throw 
down  or  to  pass.  Moreover,  whilst  hemmed  up  within  these 
limits,  they  have,  of  necessity,  as  I  have  shown,  rather 
expended  their  energy  in  mutual  conflicts,  than  in  assaults 
upon  their  great  and  common  enemy,  the  god  of  this 
world. 

The  most  direct  and  obvious  cause  of  this  state  of  things 
has  been  the  almost  unanimous  rejection  of  preexistence,  the 
only  principle  which  can  give  them  true  liberty,  and  unite 
their  energies  to  bring  to  a  speedy  close  this  spiritual 
captivity. 

It  is  for  this  reason  that  I  have  felt  it  to  be  indispensable 
to  enter  as  thoroughly  as  I  have  into  the  discussion  of  this 
passage,  for  the  sake  of  developing  its  true  meaning,  and  of 
showing  that  it  does  not,  as  is  asserted,  exclude  preexistence, 
but  rather  presupposes  and  requires  it. 

But,  now,  that  old  and  terrific  apparition  of  divine  author 
ity,  which  has  for  so  many  ages  frowned  darkly  before  the 
church,  can  no  longer  be  raised  to  dismay  our  souls,  and  to 
scare  us  Jback  into  our  ancient  captivity.  Thank  God,  we 
are  free  !  The  wide  field  of  truth  is  before  us,  with  none  to 
molest  us  or  to  make  us  afraid  ;  let  us  arise  at  once,  and,  by 
the  aid  of  the  divine  Spirit,  enter  and  possess  it. 

The  way  is  now  prepared  to  resume  the  inquiry  proposed 
at  the  end  of  the  last  book.  Shall  the  theory  of  a  previous 
existence  be  received  as  true  ?  In  reply  to  this,  it  was 
answered  by  its  opponents,  there  is  no  evidence  of  its  truth  ; 
it  merely  shifts  the  difficulty,  but  does  not  remove  it ;  and 
it  is  inconsistent  with  the  word  of  God. 

The  last  point  having  been  considered,  I  shall  now 
resume  the  other  two.  I  made  a  few  remarks  in  reply  to 
them  at  the  opening  of  this  book,  but  shall  now  subject 
them  to  a  more  full  and  thorough  discussion.  In  opposi- 


450  CONFLICT   OP   AGES. 

tion  to  preexistence,  then,  as  I  have  set  it  forth,  it  is  alleged 
that  it  is  a  mere  theory,  entirely  devoid  of  any  proof  of  its 
truth. 

This  remark  is  not  unfrequently  made  in  a  manner  which 
seems  to  imply  a  high  regard  for  truth  and  evidence,  and 
a  rational  fear  of  adopting  unfounded  and  visionary  theories. 
It  is  sometimes,  also,  presented  as  if  it  were  a  view  of  the 
case  so  profound  and  exhausting  that  nothing  more  remains 
to  be  said.  If,  indeed,  it  were  true,  such  might,  in  reality, 
be  the  case.  But  it  is  apparent  that  assertion  is  not  argu 
ment,  and  that  it  is  no  legitimate  mode  of  terminating  a 
discussion  to  take  for  granted  the  very  point  at  issue. 

But  I  will  not  assume  that  those  who  make  this  remark 
intend  thus  to  beg  the  question,  I  will  assume  that  they 
mean  that  this  is  a  point  that  can  be  known  only  by 
revelation,  and  that  it  is  not  definitely  revealed  in  express 
terms  in  the  word  of  God.  If  so,  then  they  assume  that,  if 
it  is  not  expressly  and  verbally  revealed,  it  must  ever  be  a 
theory,  and  admit  of  no  decisive  proof. 

In  reply  to  this,  I  have  already  briefly  stated  that  the 
most  important  of  all  the  truths  which  we  hold  cannot  be 
thus  proved. 

But  such  is  the  importance  of  this  point  that  it  deserves 
a  more  formal  and  full  consideration.  I  will,  therefore, 
once  more  call  attention  to  the  real  and  deepest  foundations 
of  our  religious,  intellectual  and  moral  systems,  and  to  the 
laws  of  belief  upon  which  they  rest. 

The  great  but  simple  fact,  then,  with  reference  to  such 
fundamental  doctrines,  is  this  :  THAT  THEY  REST  UPON  CER 
TAIN  IDEAS  AND  INTUITIVE  CONVICTIONS  OF  OUR  OWN 
MINDS,  TAKEN  IN  CONNECTION  WITH  THE  FACTS  OF  THE 
SYSTEM  AROUND  US. 

Thus,  since  God  has  made  us  in  his  own  image,  we  derive 


SURVE1    OF    THE   ARGUMEN1.  451 

from  our  own  minds  the  elements  of  our  idea  of  a  personal 
God,  as  a  being  possessing  intellect,  emotions  and  affections, 
will,  the  power  of  choosing  ends,  forming  plans,  and  making 
laws,  a  moral  nature,  and  a  sense  of  what  is  right  and 
wrong,  honorable  and  dishonorable.  We  find,  also,  in  our 
selves  an  intuitive  belief  of  the  necessary  relation  of  cause 
and  effect.  Thus  made,  we  examine  our  own  minds  and 
bodies,  and  the  world  around  us,  and  there  find  facts  which 
require  an  infinite  mind,  such  as  we  are  enabled  to  conceive 
of,  through  our  own  minds,  as  the  cause.  Thus  we  arrive 
at  a  rational  belief  of  the  being  of  a  God.  In  the  language 
of  Paul,  "The  invisible  things  of  him  are  clearly  seen, 
being  understood  by  the  things  that  are  made,  even  his 
eternal  power  and  Godhead." 

So,  too,  when  certain  books  are  presented  to  us  claiming 
to  be  a  revelation  from  this  God,  we  are  obliged  to  rely 
upon  the  same  principles  for  evidence  of  the  truth  of  their 
claims.  We  see  that  miracles  were  wrought  by  their 
authors,  or  prophecies  uttered  by  them,  or  doctrines  and  a 
system  set  forth  transcending  the  intellectual  and  moral 
abilities  of  man.  Such  things  we  refer  to  God  as  the  only 
adequate  cause,  and  believe  those  to  be  his  messengers 
whose  claims  he  attests  by  such  evidences.  Till  we  have 
done  this,  their  words  have  no  binding  power  over  us. 

But  what  truths  are  there  so  important  as  the  being  of  a 
God  and  the  fact  that  the  Bible  is  his  word  ?  Are  they  not 
the  basis  of  our  whole  system  of  religious  belief? 

It  is  plain,  then,  that  there  are  modes  of  proof  besides 
express  verbal  revelation,  and  that  these  are  the  most  power 
ful  and  trustworthy  by  which  the  mind  of  man  can  be 
influenced.  Otherwise,  God  would  not  have  left  the  whole 
system  to  rest  on  them. 
•  Nor  is  it  otherwise  in  the  material  system.  We  fully 


452  CONFLICT  OP  AGES. 

believe,  without  express  verbal  revelation,  the  Newtonian 
system,  based  on  the  law  of  gravitation.  Our  evidence  lies 
in  the  structure  of  our  minds,  and  in  the  facts  of  the  sys 
tem  itself.  By  the  structure  of  our  minds  we  are  led  to 
search  for  the  law  of  the  system,  and  no  less  are  we  led  by 
the  same  structure  to  rest  in  that  law  which  systematizes, 
harmonizes  and  explains,  all  the  facts  of  the  system,  and 
unites  them  in  one  glorious  whole.  No  text  of  scripture 
proves  the  Newtonian  theory.  Nay,  the  popular  phrase 
ology  of  the  Bible,  as  well  as  of  common  speech,  seems  to 
oppose  it.  But,  because  it  unites,  explains  and  harmonizes 
all  facts,  we  believe  it. 

Thus,  by  reasoning  on  the  great  law  of  causation,  we 
first  ascend  from  his  works  to  a  knowledge  of  the  great  first 
cause.  In  the  same  way  we  establish  the  divine  authority  of 
his  word,  proving  by  various  arguments  that  it  demands 
God  as  its  cause  or  author.  Nor  do  we  otherwise  establish 
the  law  of  gravitation  ;  for  we  show  that  all  the  facts  of  the 
system  demand  such  a  law  as  their  cause. 

If,  then,  it  can  be  shown  that  the  facts  of  this  moral  and 
physical  system,  taken  as  a  whole,  are  such  as  to  demand  a 
preexistent  state  in  order  to  explain  them,  as  really  and  as 
much  as  the  facts  of  the  material  system  demand  the  law 
of  gravitation  to  explain  them,  or  as  much  as  the  facts  of 
the  whole  system  demand  God  as  their  cause,  then  the  doc 
trine  of  a  preexistent  state  can  be  proved  by  the  highest 
possible  proof, —  proof  so  clear  and  so  strong  that  no  intel 
ligent  being  need  wish  to  go  beyond  it.  Let  me  state  a 
single  course  of  reasoning,  which  of  itself  would  be  all-suf 
ficient.  The  laws  of  honor  and  of  right  are  of  God ;  nor 
has  he  ever  violated  them,  nor  will  he.  This  is  the  premise 
of  an  argument  powerful  enough  to  revolutionize  nations 
and  churches,  and  to  shake  a  world. 


SURVEY   OF  THE   ARGUMENT.  453 

Taking,  then,  this  premise,  I  allege  that  if  the  facts  and 
principles  which  have  been  already  set  forth  are  true,  there 
is  a  brief  argument,  entirely  within  our  reach,  and  compre 
hensible  by  all,  which  of  itself  is  enough  to  settle  the 
question  forever. 

If  the  facts  which  have  been  stated  concerning  the  ruined 
eondition  of  man  are  true,  and  if  the  principles  of  honor  and 
right  have  been  truly  set  forth,  and  if  the  only  passage  that 
seems  to  teach  the  common  doctrine  can,  in  accordance  with 
the  true  and  well-known  laws  of  typical  language,  be  so  in 
terpreted  as  perfectly  to  accord  with  the  idea  of  preexistence, 
and  if  the  common  theory  arrays  the  principles  of  honor  and 
right  against  the  conduct  of  God,  whilst  the  other  exhibits 
them  as  in  harmony,  then  it  follows,  of  absolute  necessity, 
that  the  common  view  is  false,  and  that  which  I  advocate  is 
true.  If  the  premises  are  granted,  the  conclusion  is  inevi 
table  ;  and  no  argument  can  exceed  this  in  power.  The 
argument  for  the  being  of  a  God  has  no  superior  force. 
The  proof  that  the  Bible  is  the  word  of  God  is  no  more 
conclusive.  The  proof  of  the  truth  of  the  Newtonian  theory 
is  not  more  powerful,  although  that  is  regarded  as  estab 
lished  beyond  any  rational  doubt.  For  the  mind  of  man  is 
so  made  that  nothing  can  do  such  violence  to  its  most 
immutable  intuitive  convictions  as  the  supposition  that  God 
can  bring  to  pass  results  such  as  exist  in  this  world  in  a 
mode  that  is  at  war  with  the  principles  of  honor  and  right. 
If  there  is  a  mode  consistent  with  those  principles,  we  know, 
with  the  highest  and  most  absolute  certainty,  that  this,  and 
not  the  other,  is  the  mode  which  God  has  taken. 

For  my  own  part,  I  am  satisfied  that  the  premises  are 
true,  and  that,  therefore,  the  conclusion  is  .valid.  Nor  shall 
I  cease  to  regard  this  argument  as  perfectly  conclusive  till 
the  premises  are  overthrown.  But  any  attempt  to  do  this 


454  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

must,  I  think,  prove  a  failure.  For  the  evidence  from 
scripture,  experience  and  history,  in  proof  of  the  statement 
concerning  the  ruined  condition  of  man,  is  of  such  immense 
power  that  it  admits  of  no  logical  reply,  and  the  only  real 
argument  ever  urged  against  it  has  been  the  appeal  to  our 
intuitive  convictions  of  honor  and  right.  But  the  whole 
power  of  that  argument  is  now  neutralized  by  the  doctrine 
of  preexistence,  which  I  have  assumed.  Moreover,  the  evi 
dence  for  the  principles  of  honor  and  right,  which  I  have 
stated,  from  the  intuitive  convictions  of  the  human  mind, 
from  the  tendencies  of  regeneration  and  sanctification,  and 
from  the  word  of  God,  is  powerful  beyond  expression,  and 
can  never  be  answered  ;  and  the  only  real  argument  against 
them  has  been  an  allegation  that  they  were  inconsistent 
with  certain  well-known  acts  of  God.  But  the  whole  power 
of  this  argument,  also,  has  now  been  neutralized  by  the 
doctrine  of  preexistence,  which  I  defend.  And,  finally,  the 
interpretation  of  Rom.  5  :  12 — 19,  which  regards  the 
language  as  denoting,  in  the  case  of  Adam  and  his  posterity, 
merely  natural  death,  and  typical  sequences,  and  not 
causative,  is  not  only  a  possible  interpretation,  but  it  is  the 
one  which  best  accords  with  the  well-known  laws  of  typical 
language,  and  with  the  analogy  of  the  word  of  God. 

But,  in  addition  to  this,  there  is  a  strong  auxiliary  argu 
ment  in  support  of  the  same  view  in  the  fact  that  the  results 
of  all  attempts  to  explain  the  connection  between  the  sin 
of  Adam  and  the  ruin  of  his  posterity  have  been  so  un 
satisfactory  as  to  create  a  violent  presumption  that  the  idea 
is  in  itself  incapable  of  vindication  or  defence.  On  the 
other  hand,  preexistence  easily  explains  all  the  facts  of  the 
case.  I  will  fir^t  illustrate  this  statement  by  analogous 
cases.  It  was  once  held  almost  universally  that  the  words 
"this  is  my  body  "  were  to  be  taken  as  denoting  a  literal 


SURVEY  OP  THE  ARGUMENT.  455 

truth,  as  set  forth  in  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation.  Of 
this  truth,  of  course,  the  scholastic  divines  felt  bound  to 
produce  a  philosophical  exposition  and  defence.  The  result, 
as  was  to  be  expected,  was  a  violent  distortion  of  philosophy 
itself,  and  fertile  crops  of  absurd  and  ridiculous  results. 
The  fact  is  manifest.  No  exposition  and  defence  of  the 
dogma  in  question  is  extant,  that  does  not  lead  to  absurdi 
ties.  Is  it  not,  then,  a  fair  inference  that  the  thing  itself  is 
an  absurdity  ?  In  like  manner,  the  Romish  dogmas  of 
sacramental  regeneration  and  sanctification,  and  of  the  ruin 
of  all  who  are  not  in  the  Romish  corporation,  have  never 
been,  at  any  time,  so  expounded  and  defended  as  to  avoid 
either  gross  absurdities  or  else  a  contradiction  of  most 
notorious  facts  and  the  most  sacred  moral  principles.  Now, 
though  efforts  have  been  made,  and  still  are  made,  to  base 
these  things  on  scripture,  is  there  not  in  history  a  proof  that 
the  things  alleged  are  absurd  in  each  case  ? 

Now,  it  is  worthy  of  notice,  not  only  that  it  has  been  con 
fessed  in  all  ages  that  any  exposition  of  the  influence  of 
Adam's  sin  to  ruin  his  race  is  beset  with  most  formidable 
difficulties,  but  that  all  attempts  to  explain  it  have  failed  so 
completely  that  not  one  can  be  mentioned  which  has  not 
been  pronounced  false  by  eminent  Christians  in  large  num 
bers.  Some  have  resorted  to  the  theory  of  the  transmission 
of  the  corrupted  soul  from  generation  to  generation.  But 
this  has  been  almost  universally  repudiated  by  the  church 
in  all  ages,  as  leading  to  materialism,  and  making  the  sub 
stance  of  the  soul  sinful.  Moreover,  if  it  were  not  so,  it 
would  not  in  the  least  help  the  case  on  the  score  of  justice 
and  honor.  But,  on  the  theory  that  God  creates  the  soul,  it 
may  well  be  asked,  Does  he  create  a  depraved  and  polluted 
soul  ?  If  not,  whence  comes  its  original  native  depravity  ? 
Does  it  come  from  the  body  1  What  is  this  but  to  revive 


456  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

the  pernicious  Gnostic  doctrine,  that  the  origin  of  sin  is 
matter,  and  that  to  escape  from  sin  we  must  mortify, 
scourge  and  macerate,  the  body.  If  the  body  is  not  the 
cause,  then  it  may  be  supposed  to  lie  in  God.  Does  he, 
then,  as  some  teach,  impute  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin  to  a 
new-created  soul,  and  on  account  of  this  guilt,  and  as  a 
punishment,  create  it  without  original  righteousness,  with 
draw  from  it  supernatural  influences,  and  leave  it  a  mass 
of  corruption,  exposed  to  a  sinful  world  and  to  Satan  ?  Can 
this  be  defended  on  any  known  principle  of  honor  and  right? 
I  have  already  shown  that  it  is  confessed  that  it  cannot.  No 
effort  is  made  to  do  it.  All  who  allege  it  retreat  to  the  cover 
of  mystery.  But  I  am  unable  to  see  any  mystery  in  the  case. 
A  new -created  being  thus  treated  is  by  a  large  portion  of  the 
Christian  world  regarded  as,  beyond  all  reasonable  grounds 
of  doubt,  treated  dishonorably  arid  unjustly.  With  such  I  co 
incide.  Is  the  theory  of  those  any  better  who  say  that  the 
constitution  is  so  changed,  before  knowledge  or  action,  as  in 
all  cases  to  lead  to  sin  as  soon  as  moral  action  commences ; 
and  that  a  being  with  such  a  constitution  is  then  exposed 
to  the  full  power  of  a  sinful  world  and  of  Satan  ?  Another 
large  portion  of  the  Christian  world  regard  this,  and  very 
properly  too,  as  no  more  honorable  and  just  than  the  other 
alternative.  Shall  we,  then,  trace  all  sin  and  holiness  alike 
to  the  efficient  agency  of  God,  and  hold  that  He  established 
a  constitution  such  that  if  Adam  sinned  he  would  efficiently 
cause  all  his  posterity  to  sin  ?  But,  on  this  theory,  even 
Adam  could  not  sin,  unless  God  caused  him  so  to  do  ;  and  it 
results  in  this,  —  that  God  causes  all  men  to  sin,  because  He 
had  previously  caused  Adam  to  sin.  A  very  large  portion 
of  the  Christian  world  regard  this  theory  as  unsatisfactory, 
and  inconsistent  with  correct  views  of  man's  responsibility 
for  his  sins,  and  of  God's  sincere  opposition  to  sin. 


SURVEY    OF   THE   ARGUMENT.  457 

Shall  we,  then,  with  Edwards,  confound  all  ideas  of 
personal  identity,  and  insist  that  God  made  Adam  and  all 
his  posterity  one  person  with  respect  to  his  first  sin,  and 
different  persons  with  reference  to  all  other  sins  ?  Few, 
we  think,  will  engage  in  so  desperate  an  undertaking. 

Shall  we,  then,  with  Augustine,  resort  to  the  idea  of  a 
mysterious  unity  with  Adam,  and  hold  that  all  men  actually 
existed  in  him,  sinned  in  his  act,  and  are  guilty  of  it?  For 
ages  this  view  was  held  and  defended,  just  as  transubstan- 
tiation  was,  but  with  equal  violence  to  the  intuitive  convic 
tions  of  the  human  mind.  It  indicates,  indeed,  an  admission 
of  the  great  truth  that  men  ought  not  to  be  punished  but 
for  their  own  acts ;  it  led  to  forms  of  speech  that  seemed 
to  teach  that  all  men  did  in  reality  apostatize  from  God  at 
once  and  together, —  and,  on  this  ground,  they  repelled 
charges  of  injustice  ;  and  it  implies  one  form  of  preexistence 
and  action;  but  in  reaching  this  result  they  violated  all 
laws  of  personal  identity  and  distinct  personal  existence, 
and  involved  themselves  in  unspeakable  absurdities.  Au 
gustine  felt  and  frankly  conceded  the  difficulties  of  the  sub 
ject,  and  at  times  confessed  his  ignorance.  Luther  did  the 
same.  So  did  Turretin.  Moehler,  after  surveying  all  the 
solutions  ever  offered,  declares  them  utterly  unsatisfactory, 
and  retreats  to  mystery.  Is  there  no  presumption,  in  all 
this,  that  this  alleged  fact  is  incapable  of  vindication  or 
defence  ? 

Indeed,  it  is  admitted  by  Prof.  Hodge  that  the  whole 
difficulty  lies  in  the  mere  fact  alleged,  and  not  in  any  par 
ticular  mode  of  explanation.  "  It  is  on  all  hands  admitted," 
he  says,  "  that  the  sin  of  Adam  involved  the  race  in  ruin. 
THIS  is  THE  WHOLE  DIFFICULTY.  How  is  it  to  be  recon 
ciled  with  the  divine  character,  that  the  fate  of  unborn  mil 
lions  should  depend  on  an  act  over  which  they  had  not  the 
39 


458  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

slightest  control,  and  in  which  they  had  no  agency  ?  This 
difficulty  presses  the  opponents  of  the  doctrine  (of  imputa 
tion)  more  heavily  than  its  advocates."  According,  then, 
to  Prof.  Hodge,  THE  BEST  POSSIBLE  ground  of  justifying 
God  in  such  an  arrangement  is  to  represent  him  as  regard 
ing  "  an  act  over  which  they  had  not  the  slightest  con 
trol,  and  in  which  they  had  no  agency  "  as  being,  never 
theless,  their  act,  and  as  withdrawing  from  them,  on  account 
of  it,  all  favor,  communion  and  divine  influence,  and  thus 
inflicting  on  them  "  a  form  of  death  which  is  of  all  evils 
the  essence  and  the  sum"  Is  this,  then,  the  best  mode 
of  justifying  God,  in  a  case  so  momentous?  Certainly  it  is 
a  hard  case,  for  to  many  it  seems  that  none  can  be  worse. 
I,  however,  do  not  regard  it  as  the  best.  Nevertheless,  I  do 
agree  with  Prof.  H.,  that  all  the  modes  resorted  to  by  those 
who  reject  this  are  as  truly  and  entirely  unsatisfactory. 

After  all,  the  great  difficulty  lies  in  the  idea  that  untold 
millions  of  new-created  minds  should  in  any  way  be  brought 
into  being  by  God,  for  an  endless  existence,  either  with 
positively  depraved  natures,  or  natures  so  deranged,  dis 
ordered  and  ruined,  as  certainly  to  result  in  depravity  so 
powerful  that  nothing  but  supernatural  power  can  overcome 
it ;  and  then,  with  such  natures,  be  subjected  to  the  highest 
power  of  temptation  to  evil  through  corrupt  human  organ 
izations,  and  satanic  agency,  being  moreover  from  the  very 
first  abandoned  by  God,  and  under  his  infinite  displeasure. 
This,  I  say,  is  the  great  difficulty ;  and  no  reconciliation  of 
this  with  honor  and  justice  in  God  has  ever  been  effected, 
nor  is  it,  in  my  judgment,  possible  to  effect  it. 

But,  in  addition  to  this,  the  mode  in  which  it  is  said  to 
have  been  effected  by  those  who  ascribe  causative  power  to 
the  act  of  Adam  is  obviously  entirely  inadequate  to  effect 
such  a  result ;  as  much  so  (or  even  more)  as  looking  at  a 


SURVEY    OF   THE   ARGUMENT.  459 

brazen  serpent  is  to  heal  the  bite  of  a  poisonous  fiery  ser 
pent.  For,  indeed,  it  is  an  astounding  fact  that  is  alleged 
when  we  say  that  one  act,  done  six  thousand  years  ago, 
made  a  whole  race  so  wicked  that  their  depravity  defies  all 
but  supreme  and  divine  power. 

Certainly  the  theory  of  baptismal  regeneration,  or  sanctifi- 
cation  by  the  Lord's  supper,  truly  viewed,  seems  far  more 
rational  than  the  fact  alleged  in  this  case.  Is  it  not  as  possible, 
and  far  more  reasonable,  that  consecrated  water  should,  by  a 
divine  constitution,  regenerate  the  person  whom  it  actually 
touches,  or  the  consecrated  wafer  sanctify  the  person  who 
eats  it,  than  that  either  one  act  of  eating,  done  six  thousand 
years  ago,  or  the  sin  of  that  one  act,  should,  to  this  time,  and 
in  all  future  generations,  have  power  to  make  the  millions 
of  this  world,  before  action,  so  unspeakably  depraved  that 
without  a  supernatural  regeneration  they  must  all  forever 
perish  ?  At  all  events,  if  one  sinful  act  of  eating,  at  the 
beginning  of  the  world,  can  by  any  divine  constitution  be 
made  the  cause  of  depravity  so  inconceivably  great  and  all- 
pervading,  who  has  a  right  to  say  that  it  is  either  absurd  or 
improbable  that  an  act  of  eating,  attended  by  obedience  to 
God,  should  in  the  eucharist  by  a  divine  constitution  sanc 
tify  the  soul  and  fit  it  for  heaven  ?  Or,  even  that  sanctified 
water  should,  by  a  divine  constitution,  wash  away  sin, 
original  and  actual  ?  Indeed,  Moehler  argues,  and  not  un 
reasonably,  from  the  assumed  fact  that  man  fell  through  a 
material  system,  that  it  is  a  priori  probable  that  God  would 
restore  him  through  a  system  of  material  sacraments. 
Speaking  of  the  seven  sacraments,  he  says,  "  The  entangle 
ment  of  man  with  the  lower  world,  which  since  Adam's  dis 
obedience  hath  been  subjected  to  a  curse,  is  revealed  in  the 
most  diverse  ways.  Even  so  diverse  are  the  ways  (that  is, 
the  sacraments)  whereby  we  are  raised  up  to  a  world  of 


460  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

a  higher  order  in  and  by  the  fellowship  with  Christ."  The 
design  of  the  sacraments,  he  says,  is,  ' '  to  raise  humanity 
again  up  to  God,  as  through  Adam  it  had  fallen."  Again 
he  says,  "  As  man  ignominiously  delivered  himself  over  to 
the  dominion  of  the  lower  world,  so  he  needs  its  mediation 
to  enable  him  to  rise  above  it."  Certainly  it  is  more 
reasonable  to  suppose  man  to  be  raised,  through  a  divine 
constitution,  by  oft-repeated  and  manifold  material  sacra 
mental  acts,  than  to  suppose  all  men  in  all  ages  to  be  so 
deeply  sunk  by  one  act.  Hence,  if  the  whole  sacramental 
system  of  Rome  is  rejected  as  absurd,  and  the  very  germ 
of  the  papal  despotism,  why  should  another  theory,  still  less 
rational,  be  retained  ? 

If,  now,  any  one  shall  say,  These  things,  after  all,  ought 
not  to  be  said  ;  for  they  virtually  concede  that  all  which 
Pelagians,  Unitarians  and  Infidels,  have  said  against  the 
doctrine  of  the  fall  of  the  human  race  in  Adam  is  correct, 
and  it  will  be  received  by  them  with  triumph,  and  be  fol 
lowed  by  the  renunciation  of  the  doctrine  of  human  deprav 
ity,  and  of  Christianity  itself : 

To  this  I  reply,  the  rejection  of  the  common  doctrine  of 
the  fall  in  Adam  is  not  in  any  sense  a  rejection  of  the  doc 
trine  of  the  native  depravity  and  fallen  condition  of  the 
human  race  in  its  fullest  and  amplest  sense,  nor  of  any  doc 
trine  of  Christianity  resting  on  that  basis.  Nor  does  it 
touch  the  scriptural  or  historical  or  experimental  argu 
ments  in  favor  of  that  doctrine,  or  any  other  doctrine  of 
Christianity.  If  all  that  is  said  in  the  Bible  concerning 
Adam  were  stricken  out,  still  there  would  remain  a  perfectly 
full  and  ample  proof  of  the  doctrine  of  depravity,  and  of 
every  other  doctrine  of  the  Christian  system. 

Nor  is  this  all.  In  all  ages  the  strongest  arguments  of 
the  opponents  of  that  doctrine,  and  of  Christianity,  have  been 


SURVEY    OF   THE    ARGUMENT.  461 

derived  from  the  fact  that  the  fall  of  Adam  has  been  made 
its  basis  and  originating  cause.  They  have  no  real  argu 
ments  against  it ;  they  never  have  had,  except  such  as  have 
been  furnished  to  them  by  thus  making  that  an  essential 
part  of  the  doctrine  which  has  no  logical  connection  with  it, 
and,  still  more,  which  furnishes  the  only  real  and  valid 
arguments  against  it. 

Nothing  weakens  a  cause  so  much  as  to  defend  it  by  un 
sound  arguments,  and  to  refuse  to  admit  the  force  of  true 
and  real  arguments  against  it.  By  placing  the  doctrine  of 
human  depravity  on  the  basis  of  the  fall  in  Adam,  its  oppo 
nents  have  been  enabled  to  array  the  truth  itself  against  it, 
yea,  the  highest,  most  sacred,  and  most  affecting  truth  that 
can  be  seen  or  felt  by  the  mind  of  man.  That  truth,  with 
out  which  neither  the  glory  of  God  nor  the  sacredness  of  his 
government  can  be  seen.  Nay,  it  has  led  to  the  crippling 
and  degradation  of  the  human  mind  for  long  ages,  by  urging 
it  to  do  violence  to  its  most  sacred  and  godlike  convictions, 
by  repudiating  them  as  wretched  and  false. 

The  doctrine  of  depravity  is  a  real,  a  momentous,  a 
mournful  fact.  Scripture,  history,  Christian  experience, 
unite  in  its  proof.  If  it  were  not  called  on  to  wrestle  even 
against  God  and  the  truth,  by  an  unhappy  misadjustment, 
it  might  stand  against  the  world.  But  how  can  it  ever 
universally  prevail  whilst  obliged  to  contend  with  the 
sacred  principles  of  honor  and  right,  and  to  resort  to  theories 
indefensible  and  absurd  ? 

Whether  those  who  have  hitherto  opposed  this  doctrine 
will  receive  these  concessions  with  triumph  or  otherwise, 
has  no  bearing  on  the  question  what  is  the  truth.  If,  in 
ages  past,  they  have,  in  some  important  respects,  spoken 
the  truth,  and  it  has  been  rejected  by  the  advocates  of 
depravity,  that  is  no  reason  why  we  should  persist  in  weak- 
39* 


462  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

ening  our  cause  by  doing  the  same.  But  I  trust  that  they 
will  not  triumph,  but  receive  such  concessions  with  candor, 
and  look  at  the  real  arguments  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  with 
more  interest  and  care,  when  it  is  seen  that  it  can  be  held 
in  its  fullest  form,  arid  yet  conflict  with  no  principle  of 
honor  and  right. 

Is  there  any  danger  in  making  the  trial  of  this  course  ? 
The  other  course  has  been  tried  for  many  long  centuries. 
What  has  been  the  result  ?  Lamentable  division  and  con 
flict,  and  theories  none  of  which  has  yet  been  able  to  satisfy 
the  human  mind  that  it  is  rational  and  consistent. 

Turn,  now,  from  these  conflicting  and  unsatisfactory 
attempts  to  the  simplicity  and  intelligibleness  of  the  other 
theory.  It  resolves  original  sin  and  native  depravity  into  a 
well-known  result  of  the  laws  of  the  mind,  which  we  call 
habit.  This  is  neither  a  part  of  the  essence  nor  an  original 
attribute  of  the  mind.  It  is  a  permanent  predisposition,  or 
propensity,  to  a  sinful  course  of  action,  caused  by  repeated 
previous  action.  The  Princeton  divines  have  clearly  de 
scribed  what  I  mean,  in  rebutting  the  charge  of  teaching 
physical  regeneration,  which  had  been  alleged  against  them 
selves.  They  say  : 

"  The  main  principle,  as  before  stated,  which  is  assumed 
by  those  who  make  this  charge,  is,  that  we  can  only  regard 
the  soul  as  to  its  substance  on  the  one  hand,  and  its  actions 
on  the  other.  If,  therefore,  there  be  any  change  wrought 
in  the  soul  other  than  of  its  acts,  it  must  be  a  physical 
change.  And  if  any  tendency,  either  to  sin  or  holiness, 
exist  prior  to  choice,  it  is  a  positive  existence,  a  real  entity. 
Thus  the  charge  of  physical  depravity  and  physical  regen 
eration  is  fairly  made  out.  We  are  constrained  to  confess, 
that,  if  the  premises  are  correct,  the  conclusions,  revolting 
as  they  are,  and  affecting,  as  they  do,  the  fair  names  of  so 


SURVEY    OF   THE    ARGUMENT.  463 

large  a  portion  of  the  Christian  church,  are  valid.  The 
principle  itself,  however,  we  believe  to  be  a  gratuitous 
assumption.  It  is  inconsistent  with  the  common,  and,  as  we 
believe,  correct  idea  of  habits,  both  connatural  and  ac 
quired.  The  word  '  habit '  (habitus)  was  used  by  the  old 
writers  precisely  in  the  same  sense  as  '  principle '  by 
President  Edwards  (pp.  380-1),  or  'disposition'  as  used 
and  explained  by  President  D  wight.  That  there  are  such 
habits  or  dispositions  which  can  be  resolved  neither  into 
1  essential  attributes  '  nor  '  acts,'  we  maintain  to  be  the  com 
mon  judgment  of  mankind.  Let  us  take  for  illustration  an 
instance  of  an  acquired  habit  of  the  lowest  kind,  the  skill  of 
an  artist.  He  has  a  soul  with  the  same  essential  attributes 
as  other  men ;  his  body  is  composed  of  the  same  materials  ; 
and  the  same  law  regulates  the  obedience  of  his  muscular 
actions  to  his  mind.  By  constant  practice  he  has  acquired 
what  is  usually  denominated  skill ;  an  ability  to  go  through 
the  processes  of  his  art  with  greater  facility,  exactness  and 
success,  than  ordinary  men.  Take  this  man  while  asleep  or 
engaged  in  any  indifferent  occupation, — you  have  a  soul  and 
body  not  differing  in  any  of  their  essential  attributes  from 
those  of  other  men.  Still  there  is  a  difference.  What  is 
it?  Must  it  be  either  'a  real  existence,  an  entity,'  an  act, 
or  nothing?  It  cannot  be  'an  entity,'  for  it  is  acquired, 
and  it  will  hardly  be  maintained  that  a  man  can  acquire  a 
new  essential  attribute.  Neither  is  it  an  act,  for  the  man 
has  his  skill  when  it  is  not  exercised.  Yet  there  is  cer 
tainly  '  something,'  which  is  the  ground  of  certainty  that, 
when  called  to  go  through  the  peculiar  business  of  his  art, 
he  will  do  it  with  an  ease  and  rapidity  impossible  for  com 
mon  men.  It  is  as  impossible  not  to  admit  that  this 
ground  or  reason  exists,  in  order  to  account  for  the  effect, 
as  it  is  not  to  admit  the  existence  of  the  soul  to  account  for 


464  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

its  exercises.  By  constant  practice,  a  state  of  mind  and 
body  has  been  produced  adapted  to  secure  these  results,  and 
which  accounts  for  their  character.  But  this  is  the  defini 
tion  of  principle  or  habit  as  given  above.  A  single  cir 
cumstance  is  here  wanting  which  is  found  in  other  '  habits,' 
and  that  is,  there  is  not  the  tendency  or  proneness  to 
those  particular  acts  to  which  this  state  of  mind  is  adapted. 
This  difference,  however,  arises  not  from  any  difference  in 
the  '  habits '  themselves,  but  from  the  nature  of  the  faculties 
in  which,  so  to  speak,  they  inhere.  A  principle  in  the  will 
(in  its  largest  sense,  including  all  the  active  powers)  is  not 
only  a  state  of  mind  adapted  to  certain  acts,  but  prone  to 
produce  them.  This  is  not  the  case,  at  least  to  the  same 
degree,  with  intellectual  habits.  Both  classes,  however, 
come  within  the  definition  given  by  President  Edwards  and 
Dr.  D  wight :  'A  state  of  mind,'  or  'foundation  for  any 
particular  kind  of  exercise  of  the  faculties  of  the  soul.' 
The  same  remarks  may  be  made  with  regard  to  habits  of  a 
more  purely  intellectual  character.  A  man,  by  devoting 
himself  to  any  particular  pursuit,  gradually  acquires  a 
facility  in  putting  forth  the  mental  exercises  which  it 
requires.  This  implies  no  change  of  essence  in  the  soul ; 
and  it  is  not  merely  an  act,  which  is  the  result  of  this  prac 
tice.  The  result,  whatever  it  is.  is  an  attribute  of  the  man 
under  all  circumstances,  and  not  merely  when  engaged  in 
the  exercises  whence  the  habit  was  acquired. 

"  But  to  come  nearer  to  the  case  in  hand.  We  say  a 
man  has  a  malignant  disposition,  or  an  amiable  disposition. 
What  is  to  be  understood  by  these  expressions  ?  Is  it 
merely  that  he  often  indulges  malignant  or  amiable  feelings  ? 
or  is  it  not  rather  that  there  is  an  habitual  proneness  or 
tendency  to  their  indulgence  ?  Surely  the  latter.  But,  if 
so,  the  principle  stated  above,  that  we  can  regard  the  sou/ 


SURVEY   OF  THE   ARGUMENT.  465 

only  as  to  its  substance  or  its  actions,  cannot  be  correct. 
For  the  result  of  a  repetition  of  acts  of  the  same  kind  is  an 
abiding  tendency,  which  is  itself  neither  an  act  (emanent  or 
immanent)  nor  an  '  entity.'  Here,  then,  is  the  soul  with  its 
essential  attributes, —  an  habitual  tendency  to  certain  exer 
cises,  and  the  exercises  themselves.  The  tendency  is  not 
an  act.  nor  an  active  state  of  the  feelings  in  question  ;  for  it 
would  be  a  contradiction  to  say  that  a  man  whose  heart  was 
glowing  with  parental  affection,  or  filled  for  the  time  with 
any  other  amiable  feeling,  had  at  the  same  moment  the 
malignant  feelings  in  an  active  state,  although  there  might 
exist  the  greatest  proneness  to  their  exercise.  We  have 
seen  no  analysis  of  such  dispositions  which  satisfies  us  that 
they  can  be  reduced  to  acts.  For  it  is  essential  to  the 
nature  of  an  act  that  it  should  be  a  matter  of  consciousness. 
This  is  true  of  those  which  are  immanent  acts  of  the  will,  or 
ultimate  choices  (by  which  a  fixed  state  of  the  affections  is 
meant  to  be  expressed),  as  well  as  of  all  others.  But  a 
disposition  or  principle,  as  explained  above,  is  not  a  matter 
of  consciousness.  A  man  may  be  aware  that  he  has  a  cer 
tain  disposition,  as  he  is  aware  of  the  existence  of  his  soul, 
from  the  consciousness  of  its  acts,  but  the  disposition  itself 
is  not  a  subject  of  direct  consciousness.  It  exists  when  the 
man  is  asleep  or  in  a  swoon,  and  unconscious  of  anything. 
Neither  can  these  habits  be,  with  any  propriety,  called  a 
choice,  or  permanent  affection.  For  in  many  cases  they  are 
a  mere  proneness  to  acts  which  have  their  foundation  in  a  s 
constitutional  principle  of  the  mind.  Our  object  at  present 
is  merely  to  show  that  we  must  admit  that  there  are  mental 
habits  which  cannot  be  resolved  either  into  essential  attri 
butes  of  the  soul,  fixed  preferences,  or  subordinate  acts ;  and, 
consequently,  that  those  who  believe  in  dispositions  prior  to 
all  acts  do  not  necessarily  maintain  that  such  dispositions 


4G6  CONFLICT   OP   AGES. 

are  of  the  essence  of  the  soul  itself.  If  it  be  within  the 
compass  of  the  divine  power  to  produce  in  us  that  which  by 
constant  exercise  we  can  produce  in  ourselves,  then  a  holy 
principle  or  habit  may  be  the  result  of  the  Spirit's  influence 
in  regeneration,  without  any  physical  change  having  been 
wrought." 

This  I  am  willing  to  adopt  as  a  very  satisfactory 
description  of  the  origin  and  nature  of  that  state  of  mind 
which,  in  my  judgment,  precedes  voluntary  action  in  this 
world.  Man  is  born  with  sinful  habits,  formed  by  himself, 
deeply  fixed,  and  unconquerable  except  by  divine  grace; 
and  this  is  the  simple  account  of  the  whole  matter.  Let 
it  now  be  noticed  that  the  result  at  which  these  able 
writers  aim  is  the  very  thing  which  is  given  to  them  by 
preexistence,  in  perfect  consistency  with  the  laws  of  mind 
and  the  character  of  God.  But  that  such  evil  habits 
can  be  concreated  is  not  capable  of  proof,  and  is  not 
probable ;  and,  even  if  it  were  possible,  it  is  not  consistent 
with  the  character  of  God.  Moreover,  if  they  were  con- 
created  by  God,  they  ought  to  be  viewed  rather  in  the  light 
of  an  evil  unjustly  inflicted  by  him  upon  man,  than  of  de 
pravity  for  which  man  can  be  justly  held  accountable.  But, 
on  the  view  which  I  present,  all  of  these  difficulties  disappear. 

That  man  is  responsible  for  habits  thus  formed,  and 
that  they  fill  up  the  proper  meaning  of  such  words  as  a 
sinful  disposition,  bias,  taste,  inclination,  is  very  clearly 
stated  by  Prof.  Stuart,  in  his  discussion  of  the  nature  of  sin, 
in  the  American  Biblical  Repository  for  July,  1839. 

"It  will  doubtless  be  asked  here,  What,  then. —  is  there 
not  such  a  thing  as  sinful  disposition,  bias,  taste,  inclina 
tion  in  men  ?  Are  we  to  abandon  all  expressions  of  this 
sort,  so  long  established  by  usage,  and  the  common  sense  of 
mankind  ? 


SURVEY    OF  THE   ARGUMENT.  467 

"  Not  at  all  to  abandon  them,  is  my  reply.  Whenever 
a  disposition,  bias,  inclination,  propensity,  or  whatever  of 
this  nature  one  may  please  to  name  it,  is  spoken  of  as  being 
sinful,  the  phraseology  evidently  may  have  two  different 
meanings.  In  the  one  case,  if  by  the  phraseology  in  ques 
tion  we  mean  to  designate  the  bias,  or  inclination,  or  pro 
pensity  to  evil,  which  men  have  created  for  themselves  by 
practically  indulging  in  sin,  then  these  words  may  be  taken 
in  their  natural  and  proper  sense.  It  is  a  known  law  of 
our  being  that  the  indulgence  of  forbidden  desires  and  prac 
tices  strengthens  our  propensity  to  evil.  The  man,  then, 
who  is  guilty  of  such  indulgence,  is  truly  and  properly  a 
sinner,  because  of  his  strengthened  propensities  to  evil. 
All  which  he  has  done  to  augment  these  propensities  has 
been  voluntary  transgression  of  God's  law  ;  and  for  these 
propensities,  as  thus  augmented  or  aggravated,  he  is  alto 
gether  accountable  as  a  sinner.  They  are  not  only  the 
evidence  of  his  sin,  but,  in  as  much  as  he  has  made  them 
strong  and  imperious,  so  far  as  they  have  been  augmented 
and  made  to  become  imperious  by  him,  they  are  themselves 
sinful,  because  they  have  been  strengthened  by  voluntary 
sinful  indulgence.  Hence  the  Scriptures  so  often  speak,  and 
truly  they  may  speak,  of  Im&viiiu  as  being  sinful" 

If  men  are  born  with  such  habits,  thus  formed  in  a 
previous  state  of  being,  then  for  them  they  are  respons 
ible.  And  it  is  worthy  of  notice  that  the  old  writers 
often  call  the  opposite  state  produced  by  regeneration  the 
habit  of  love,  faith,  or  of  any  other  Christian  grace.  Thus, 
by  the  theory  of  preexistence,  a  deep  foundation  is  laid  for 
a  thorough  doctrine  of  original  sin  and  total  depravity  ;  and 
yet  the  guilt  rests  upon  man,  and  God  is  clear. 

Accordingly,  this  view  has  so  much  verisimilitude,  that  it 
has  naturally  suggested  itself  to  Julius  Muller,  a  man  of  ail 


468  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

intelligent,  far-seeing  and  candid  mind,  as  the  only  satisfac 
tory  explanation  of  the  matter,  on  a  fair  view  of  the  facts  of 
the  case.  Of  him  Professor  Edwards  says  :  "  As  a  pro 
found  and  scientific  theologian,  he  has  probably  no  superior 
among  his  learned  countrymen.  His  great  work  is  on  the 
Nature  of  Sin,  and  is  characterized  by  profound  investiga 
tion,  accurate  analysis,  comprehensive  survey  of  the  entire 
field,  and  a  systematic  arrangement  of  his  materials  truly 
German."  He  first  establishes  the  reality  of  sin.  disclosing 
its  nature  and  its  guilt.  He  comes  to  the  result  that  noth 
ing  can  partake  of  the  nature  of  sin.  or  involve  guilt,  except 
the  acts  of  the  will,  or  the  results  of  those  acts  on  the  con 
stitution  in  the  form  of  sinful  propensities  and  habits.  He 
resolves  all  actual  sin  into  selfishness,  and  herein  agrees 
with  Edwards  and  Hopkins.  He  then  discusses  different 
theories  of  the  origin  of  sin,  rejecting  the  idea  that  it 
is  either  the  necessary  result  of  a  finite  nature,  or  of  the 
metaphysical  imperfection  of  man ;  or  that  it  results  from 
the  fact  that  the  mind  is  connected  with  the  material  sys 
tem  by  the  body,  with  its  senses  and  appetites;  or  that 
evil  is  necessary,  in  order,  by  its  contrasts,  to  secure  a  vital 
development  of  individuals  in  human  life  ;  and  also  the 
Manichean  theory  of  a  self-existent  principle  of  evil. 

He  traces  the  origin  of  sin  to  the  perverted  and  self- 
determined  action  of  free  will.  He  holds  that,  to  originate 
character,  there  must  be  at  the  beginning  of  existence  a 
power  of  choice  between  good  and  evil,  such  that,  whichever 
is  chosen,  the  other  might  have  been  chosen.  Herein  he 
agrees  with  Augustine  and  his  followers.  By  this  power 
of  choice,  a  character  may  be  formed  such  that  the  prepon 
derance  either  to  good  or  to  evil  shall  be  so  strong  as  to 
create  a  certainty  that  the  opposite  will  never  be  chosen. 
In  this  state  of  preponderance  to  evil,  he  finds  man  from  the 


SURVEY    OF   THE   ARGUMENT.  469 

very  beginning  of  his  development  in  this  world.  He  does 
not,  therefore,  come  here  to  form  a  character,  but  with  one 
already  formed.  The  following  condensed  summary  of  his 
views  on  this  point  I  take  from  the  abstract  of  Mr.  Robie,  in 
the  BibUotheca  Sacra  for  May,  1849,  p.  253,  not  having 
myself  seen  the  second  volume  of  the  work. 

"If  there  were,  at  the  commencement  of  our  conscious 
existence,  such  an  individual  act  as  the  stepping  forth  of  the 
will  out  of  a  state  of  indecision  into  a  sinful  purpose,  it 
would  remain  as  a  dark  background  in  the  memory.  But 
who  is  able  to  say  definitely  when  and  how  he  for  the  first 
time  acted  in  contradiction  to  his  moral  consciousness? 
Certainly  our  recollection,  if  our  attention  is  directed  suffi 
ciently  early  to  this  point,  goes  back  further  than  is  gen 
erally  supposed ;  and  many  a  one  will  be  able  to  say  when, 
for  example,  the  first  feelings  of  hatred  and  revenge  were 
enkindled  within  him,  and  what  a  tumult  they  produced  in 
the  soul  of  the  child.  But,  if  we  descend  deeper  into  the 
shaft  of  self-recollection,  we  discover  behind  these  earliest 
moments  of  sin  still  others  by  which  they  were  prepared, 
and  which  accordingly  must  have  been  of  the  same  sinful 
character ;  and,  if  we  seek  to  fix  these,  yet  other  similar 
emotions  loom  up  in  our  memory,  and  these  again,  if  we 
seek  to  hold  them  fast,  lose  themselves  in  an  uncertain  twi 
light.  To  a  pure  beginning,  to  an  original  determining  act, 
it  is  impossible  in  this  way  to  attain.  The  earliest  sinful 
act  which  presents  itself  to  our  consciousness  does  not 
appear  as  the  incoming  of  an  altogether  new  element  into 
the  youthful  life,  but  rather  as  the  development  and  mani 
festation  of  a  hidden  agency,  the  awakening  of  a  power 
slumbering  in  the  deep.  Sin  does  not  then  for  the  first 
time  exist  in  us,  but  only  steps  forth  into  light.  However 
important  the  epoch  of  awakening  moral  consciousness  may 
40 


470  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

be,  it  has  a  past  behind  it,  which  is  not  without  co-deter 
mining  influence  upon  the  conduct  of  the  child  in  that 
crisis. 

"  And  is  it  probable  that  a  decision  on  which  depends 
the  future  moral  character  of  an  immortal  soul  would  be 
intrusted  to  the  weak  hand  of  a  child  ?  Go  back  as  far  as 
we  may,  we  do  not  find  formal  freedom  in  this  life.  From 
the  earliest  period  of  his  existence  in  this  world,  the  moral 
character  of  man  is  already  determined.  On  the  ground  of 
a  practical  empiricism, —  that  is,  a  mode  of  thinking  which 
seeks  for  the  circumstances  and  conditions  of  the  moral 
actions  of  men  only  in  what  comes  under  our  observation 
during  this  earthly  life, — the  doctrine  of  necessity  cannot  be 
refuted. 

"  To  originate  one's  own  character  is  an  essential  con 
dition  of  personality  ;  and  since  from  the  beginning  of  this 
life  man's  character  is  already  determined,  we  a,re  obliged 
to  step  over  the  bounds  of  time  to  find  the  source  of  his 
freedom  of  will,  to  discover  that  act  of  free  will  by  which  he 
determined  himself  to  a  course  of  sin.  Is  the  moral  con 
dition,  in  which,  irrespective  of  redemption,  we  find  man  to 
be,  one  of  guilt,  and  a  consequence  of  his  own  act ;  is  there 
truth  in  the  testimony  of  conscience  which  imputes  to  us 
our  sins  ;  is  there  truth  in  the  voice  of  religion  that  God  is 
not  the  author  of  sin, —  then  the  freedom  of  man  must  have 
its  beginning  in  a  domain  out  of  time.  In  this  domain  is 
that  power  of  original  choice  to  be  sought  for  which  pre 
cedes  and  preconditions  all  sinful  decisions  in  time." 

We  have  here  the  elements  of  an  argument  which,  if  the 
premises  are  sure,  is  valid.  The  premises  are,  sin  must 
be  man's  own  act,  guilt  can  attach  to  nothing  else.  Nor  is 
God  the  author  of  sin.  Yet  man  is,  from  the  beginning  of 
this  life,  a  sinner,  and  guilty.  This  is  the  testimony  of 


SURVEY   OF  THE   ARGUMENT.  471 

conscience  and  of  God.     Of  course  he  must  have  sinned 
before  entering  this  world. 

He  reasons  again  to  the  same  effect,  as  follows  : 
"  The  problem  is,  to  reconcile  the  guilt  of  each  individual 
with  the  universality  of  sin  in  the  race,  and  thus  show  the 
falsity  of  the  conclusion,  drawn  from  that  universality,  that 
sin  is  an  essential  constituent  of  human  nature,  or  a  matter 
of  metaphysical  necessity.  On  the  one  side,  there  is  in  all 
men  an  innate  sinfulness,  and,  on  the  other  side,  wherever 
sin  is  there  is  guilt ;  that  is,  each  individual  is,  by  his  own 
self-determination,  the  author  of  his  sin.  This  would  be  a 
manifest  contradiction,  if  there  were  not  preceding  our 
earthly  development  in  time  an  existence  of  our  personality 
as  the  sphere  of  that  self-determination  by  which  our  moral 
condition  from  birth  is  affected.  And  so,  from  these  unde 
niable  facts  of  human  life,  we  are  led  to  the  same  idea  to 
which  the  examination  of  human  freedom  brought  us, —  the 
idea  of  a  mode  of  existence  of  created  personalities  out 
of  time,  and  from  which  their  life  in  time  is  dependent. 
Should  we,  however,  ascribe  to  all  personal  creatures  in  the 
timeless  state  of  their  being  such  a  perversion  of  will  as  is 
found  in  man,  we  should  transfer  the  same  difficult  problem 
to  the  sphere  in  which,  we  suppose,  is  found  its  solution. 
But  here  we  are  met  and  relieved  by  a  doctrine  which  finds 
a  place  in  the  religious  belief  of  most  nations,  that  a  part 
of  the  spirit-world,  by  their  self-determination,  founded  a 
moral  state  of  being  in  undisturbed  harmony  with  God,  and 
thus  elevated  the  original  purity  in  which  they  were  cre 
ated  to  a  free  holiness ;  and  that  another  portion  of  those 
beings  entirely  and  decidedly  turned  away  from  God, 
whereby  for  their  existence  in  time  every  inclination  to  good 
was  excluded." 

Who  does  not  see  that  this  distinguished  divine,  who  is 


472  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

confessedly  the  leader  of  the  German  theologians  of  this 
day,  was  led  to  take  this  view  by  the  same  mode  of  reason 
ing  that  is  deemed  conclusive  with  reference  to  the  New 
tonian  system  ?  The  solution  which  he  assigns  accounts  for 
the  facts  of  the  case.  No  other  does  or  can.  The  object 
of  his  work  and  his  line  of  argument  differ  from  mine,  yet 
in  this  particular  I  am  gratified  to  see  that  we  come  to  com 
mon  results. 

It  is  also  an  encouraging  circumstance  that  Dr.  Hodge, 
speaking  in  the  name  of  the  Princeton  divines,  has  referred 
with  approbation  to  this  work  of  Miiller  as  one  of  great 
importance,  and  on  the  right  side  of  the  great  question  of 
original  sin.  We  are  thus  encouraged  to  hope  that  they 
will  adopt  his  doctrine,  that  nothing  is  sin  except  acts  of 
the  will  or  their  results  in  evil  habits,  and  logically  follow 
it  out  to  its  results. 

There  is  another  and  more  extended  form  of  argument, 
which  requires  greater  detail  and  fulness  than  is  con 
sistent  with  my  present  limits,  if  its  full  power  is  to  be 
exhibited.  It  is  the  argument  taken  from  the  agreement  of 
the  phenomena  of  the  system  as  a  whole  with  preexistence, 
and  also  from  the  tendencies  of  the  system  to  affect  human 
society,  in  contrast  with  the  actual  effects  of  the  opposite 
system.  I  can  but  state  this  argument  in  outline.  Volumes 
would  be  required  to  do  it  full  justice.  But,  to  prepare  the 
way,  I  for  the  present  suspend  this  line  of  argument,  to 
meet  the  remaining  allegation  against  the  theory  of  preex 
istence. 

NOTE  TO  SECOND  EDITION,  on  p.  467,  &c.  —  On  reading  the  second 
volume  of  Miiller,  I  find  that,  though  he  argues  with  me  in  the  fact  of  the 
preexistence  of  man,  yet  his  views  of  the  state  in  which  he  preexisted,  the 
reasons  of  his  sinning,  and  the  influence  of  sinful  habits-  do  not  agree 
with  mine. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE     ORIGIN     OF     EVIL. 

V/ 

THE  remaining  allegation  against  the  theory  of  preexist- 
ence  is,  that  it  merely  shifts  the  difficulty,  but  does  not 
remove  it.  This  is  thus  stated  by  Dr.  Woods.  (Vol.  II. 
p.  365.)  "  This  hypothesis,  even  if  admitted  to  be  true, 
would  still  fail  of  answering  the  purpose  intended. 
Although  it  might  furnish  some  plausible  account  of  our 
innate  depravity,  it  would  cast  no  light  on  the  fact  of  our 
having  sinned  in  a  previous  state,  and  so  would  leave  the 
great  difficulty  untouched.  Why  moral  evil  should  ever  be 
suffered  to  exist  in  beings  who  are  entirely  dependent  on 
God  and  under  his  control,  and  how  its  existence  can  be 
accounted  for  consistently  with  the  infinite  perfections  of 
God,  is  a  question  to  which  human  wisdom,  untaught  from 
above,  can  give  no  satisfactory  answer." 

To  this  there  is  a  reply  obvious,  simple  and  conclusive. 
The  real  and  great  difficulty  lies,  not  in  the  idea  that  free 
agents  should  sin,  but  in  the  idea  that  God  should  bring 
man  into  being  with  a  nature  morally  depraved,  anterior  to 
any  will,  wish,  desire  or  knowledge,  of  his  own,  or  with  a 
constitution  so  deranged  and  corrupt  as  to  tend  to  sin  with 
a  power  that  no  man  can  overcome  in  himself  or  in  others  ; 
and  that,  in  addition  to  this,  he  should  place  him  in  a  state 
40* 


474  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

of  so  great  social  disadvantage,  and,  as  the  climax,  expose 
him,  so  weak,  to  the  fearful  wiles  of  powerful  and  malignant 
spirits.  This  difficulty  preexistence  does  touch  and  entirely 
remove,  by  referring  the  origin  of  his  depravity  to  his 
own  action  in  another  state,  and  showing  that  the  system  of 
this  world  is  a  system  of  sovereignty  established  over  beings 
who  have  lost  their  original  claims  on  the  justice  of  God. 

If  now  a  difficulty  is  alleged  still  to  exist  as  to  their 
first  sinning  in  a  previous  state,  it  is  enough  to  say  that 
this  is  not  the  same  difficulty  that  existed  before,  but  alto 
gether  a  different  one  ;  that  is,  how  beings,  created  with  an 
uncorrupt  moral  constitution,  and  in  a  spiritual  system 
arranged  in  the  best  manner  to  favor  their  perseverance  in 
right,  could  be  led  to  sin.  Suppose,  then,  that  this  question 
is  not  answered,  and  cannot  be  (although  I  do  not  concede 
that  it  cannot)  —  but  suppose  it.  What  then  ?  It  merely 
leaves  a  mysterious  fact ;  but  it  does  not,  as  in  the  former 
case,  present  an  alleged  fact,  which  the  human  mind  can  see 
to  be  within  the  range  of  its  faculties,  and  to  be  positively  un 
just.  It  therefore  removes  a  dispensation  positively  unjust, 
and,  in  place  of  it,  presents  one  that  is  simply  mysterious. 
But  it  resorts  to  mystery  in  a  proper  place.  For,  since 
the  past  history  of  the  universe  is  not  revealed  in  detail, 
nothing  exists  to  forbid  the  idea  that,  whatever  were  the 
circumstances  in  which  men  sinned,  and  whatever  were  the 
reasons  of  their  sinning,  still  they  were  such  as  in  the 
highest  degree  to  show  forth  the  honor,  justice  and  love  of 
God,  and  to  throw  the  whole  blame  on  man.  What,  then, 
if  we  cannot  state  exactly  these  circumstances  and  reasons? 
What  if  we  cannot  reconstruct  the  past  history  of  each 
man  ?  Still  we  know  nothing,  and  we  see  nothing,  to  forbid 
a  full  belief,  based  on  confidence  in  God,  that,  in  all  his 
dealings  with  them,  he  was  honorable  and  just. 


THE   ORIGIN    OF   EVIL.  475 

But,  if  it  be  said  we  do  still  know  enough  to  create  a 
difficulty, —  we  do  know  that  all  created  beings  are  entirely 
dependent  on  God,  and  under  his  control,  and  it  seems 
inconsistent  with  wisdom  and  justice  that  he  should  allow 
them  to  sin, —  I  reply,  this  objection  assumes  as  its  basis 
a  theory  of  the  relations  of  divine  power  to  a  system  of 
free  agency  which  is  neither  self-evident  nor  in  accord 
ance  with  the  word  of  God. 

It  assumes  that  God,  in  making  and  governing  a  system 
of  created  minds,  has,  at  all  stages  of  progress,  absolute 
and  unlimited  power  to  secure  universal  holiness,  if  he  will ; 
and  rejects  the  supposition  of  a  temporary  limitation  of 
divine  power  in  the  earlier  stages  of  his  system,  in  conse 
quence  of  the  necessary  liability  of  finite  minds  to  unbelief 
and  distrust  of  God,  when  exposed  to  the  inevitable  trials 
which  pertain  to  an  infinite  system,  such  as  befits  God,  and 
in  which  alone  he  can  properly  act  out  himself.  These 
opposite  views  are  also  connected  with  two  unlike  views  of 
the  character  of  God,  which  grow  out  of  and  accord  with 
them  respectively.  On  the  side  of  absolute  and  unlimited 
power,  it  is  asserted  that  the  will  of  God  in  all  things  is, 
and  ever  will  be,  so  completely  done,  that  he  is  entirely 
free  from  all  grief,  pain  or  suffering  of  any  kind,  from  the 
sins  of  his  creatures.  On  the  other  side,  it  is  held  that 
God,  in  reality,  has  no  pleasure  at  all  in  the  death  of  him 
that  dieth,  but  prefers  his  eternal  life,  and  is  really  and 
truly  grieved  by  the  sins  of  his  creatures ;  but  that  there  is 
a  temporary  limitation  of  divine  power,  originating  from 
the  limitation  of  finite  capacities  to  comprehend  God  and 
his  ways,  and  a  consequent  liability  in  the  first  generations 
of  creatures  to  unbelief,  distrust  and  sin.  involving  a  season 
of  suffering  in  God,  and  requiring  a  full  unfolding  of  truth 


476  CONFLICT  OF  AGES. 

in  act,  until  God  and  his  system  shall  be  fully  disclosed, 
and  the  occasion  of  unbelief  cease. 

The  position  that  God's  power  of  disclosing  himself  and 
his  system  and  plans  to  his  creatures  in  their  earliest  gen 
erations  is  limited,  does  not  diminish  but  increases  our 
ideas  of  the  greatness  of  God ;  for  his  greatness  is  the  cause 
of  the  limitation  in  question.  It  is  merely  the  inability  of  an 
infinite  mind  to  bring  itself  and  its  plans  down  to  the  level 
of  a  finite  mind.  Does  it  exalt  our  ideas  of  God,  and  show 
the  infinite  difference  between  him  and  a  creature,  to  assert 
that  he  can  put  himself  and  all  his  plans  fully  into  the 
mind  of  that  creature  ?  Or,  does  it.  on  the  other  hand, 
most  exalt  God  to  say  that  he  is  so  vast  that  no  created 
mind  can  fully  comprehend  him  or  his  plans,  and  that  it  is 
beyond  even  his  power  to  destroy  the  infinite  chasm  that 
separates  creator  and  creature  ?  But,  simple  and  obvious  as 
is  this  idea  of  the  vastness  of  God  and  his  system,  and  this 
consequent  limitation  of  finite  minds,  and  obvious  and  satis 
factory  as  is  the  solution  of  the  origin  of  evil  which  it 
furnishes,  still  it  has  been  much  overlooked.  The  causes 
which  have  blinded  the  minds  of  so  many  to  it  are,  the 
inconsiderate  ascription  to  God  of  the  unproved  ability  to 
do  all  things,  in  a  moral  system,  by  naked  power,  without 
moral  and  intellectual  motives;  want  of  proper  reflection 
on  the  disproportion  between  him  and  created  minds,  and 
on  what  is  essential  in  order  to  act  with  him  in  a  universal 
system,  and  on  the  discipline  needed  to  fit  created  minds  for 
it,  and  on  the  trial  involved  in  such  discipline;  on  the  ease 
with  which  a  being  so  vast  in  the  execution  of  plans  which 
are  infinite  and  for  eternity  may  be  misunderstood,  and  on 
the  immediate  and  fatal  effects  of  a  loss  of  confidence  in 
God.  It  has  not  been  sufficiently  considered,  that,  if  the 
very  greatness  of  God,  and  the  necessary  limitation  of  all, 


THE   ORIGIN    OF  EVIL.  477 

even  the  highest  created  minds,  render  it  impossible  for  him 
to  disclose  fully  either  himself  or  his  plans  to  them,  then 
that  he  must  try  them,  by  acting  in  view  of  what  he  sees, 
not  of  what  they  see  :  that  is,  he  must  ever  act  in  view  of 
considerations  unseen  and  unknown  to  created  minds.  He 
dwells  in  light  to  which  no  created  mind  can  approach ;  and 
no  eye  has  seen,  or  ever  will  see,  but  in  an  infinitely  small 
degree,  all  that  is  involved  in  the  full  knowledge  of  God. 
But,  when  once  these  things  are  well  considered,  they  disclose 
a  satisfactory  reason  for  the  origin  of  evil,  and  one  not  dis 
honorable  to  God  5  for  to  annihilate  the  infinite  distance 
between  himself  and  a  creature  is  not  in  his  power.  He 
must  act  according  to  his  own  greatness,  and  yet  under  the 
limitations  created  by  an  utter  impossibility  of  transmitting 
into  a  finite  mind  a  full  knowledge  of  all  that  exists  in  an 
infinite  one.  Hence,  if  he  will  act  with  finite  minds,  on  an 
infinite  plan,  he  must  act,  at  least  in  the  earlier  generations, 
with  a  necessary  liability  of  being  misunderstood;  and,  if 
his  ways  are  trying,  of  losing  the  confidence  of  those  with 
whom  he  acts.  But,  whoever  disbelieves,  and  distrusts 
God  and  departs  from  him,  departs,  of  course,  from  infinite 
truth  and  right;  and,  though  God's  vastness  forbids  him  to 
disclose  this  at  once,  yet  the  progress  of  events,  in  a  course 
of  development,  will  surely  show  that  such  is  the  fact. 

What  God  needs,  then,  is  not  naked  power,  but  calm, 
benevolent,  tranquil  patience  and  time.  In  this  way,  the 
progress  of  events  will  cover  him  with  glory,  and  his 
enemies  with  shame. 

This  view  is  that  which  accords  with  the  general  spirit  of 
the  Bible,  and  with  the  views  there  given  of  the  vastness 
of  his  plans,  and  of  his  taking  counsel  of  none.  (Is.  40, 
Rom.  11.)  Their  impenetrability  to  created  intellects  is  no 
less  clearly  set  forth.  Clouds  and  darkness  are  round  about 


478  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

him.  The  Lord  hath  said  that  he  would  dwell  in  the  thick 
darkness.  Secret  things  belong  unto  him. 

Carry  back,  then,  these  principles  to  the  early  generations, 
and  we  find  an  ample  solution  of  the  origin  of  evil,  in  the 
trial  of  new-created  minds,  with  uncorrupted  moral  consti 
tutions,  and  yet  not  developed  by  discipline,  and  needing 
trial  to  perfect  them,  as  was  the  case  with  Christ,  who 
learned  obedience  by  the  things  that  he  suffered,  and  was 
thus  perfected.  Conceive  of  them  as  in  trial,  distrusting 
God,  revolting  and  taking  ground  against  him,  and  the 
system  is  solved.  All  else  is  a  system  of  patient  evolution 
on  the  part  of  God,  by  which  the  truth  is  to  be  revealed, 
and  they  are  to  be  exposed,  and  the  power  and  reign  of 
unbelief  are  to  be  forever  destroyed,  not  by  direct  force, 
but  by  truth  and  justice. 

In  this  account  of  the  matter  we  rise  entirely  above  any 
solution  which  the  common  system  of  the  fall  can  furnish. 
On  the  other  hand,  that  discountenances  this  view,  even  as 
respects  the  first  entrance  of  sin,  by  representing  God  as 
disowning  it  in  this  world.  Here,  he  brings  in  sin,  by  the 
fall,  as  an  element  chosen  and  desired.  He,  through  one 
sin,  renders  sure  the  existence  of  a  fallen  race,  as  furnishing 
the  necessary  materials  for  a  system  of  grace, — such  ma 
terials,  and  so  situated,  as  have  been  described.  In  this  way 
are  created  the  positive  difficulties  already  considered,  and 
of  which  there  is  no  reasonable  solution. 

This,  of  course,  nullifies  all  theories  as  to  any  honorable 
solution  of  the  great  problem  of  the  primitive  origin  of 
evil;  for,  if  God  is  such  a  being  that  his  feelings  do  not 
revolt  at  introducing  moral  evil  into  this  world  in  this  way, 
then  there  is  no  reason  to  look  for  any  better  mode  of 
securing  the  same  result  in  the  first  entrance  of  evil. 

It  may,  indeed,  be  said  that  it  is  of  no  use  at  all  te 


THE    ORIGIN    OF   EVIL.  479 

speculate  as  to  the  origin  of  evil;  it  is  a  thing  that  cannot 
be  understood;  it  is  beyond  the  reach  of  our  faculties,  and 
to  speculate  concerning  it  is  presumptuous.  Indeed,  Dr. 
Woods  has  not  hesitated  to  use  the  following  hard  words 
on  the  subject :  "  If  we  should  try  to  make  out,  by  reasoning, 
that  something  like  this  (that  is,  preexistence)  must  be  sup 
posed,  in  order  to  account  for  the  fact  of  our  depravity 
consistently  with  the  justice  of  God,  our  reasoning,  instead 
of  proving  the  fact  of  a  preexistent  state,  would  only  prove 
our  ignorance  and  presumption.'"' 

Is  it,  indeed,  so  ?  And  will  reflecting  men  be  willing  to 
take  such  a  ground  on  the  most  practical  and  important 
of  all  questions  ?  If  the  great  end  of  this  remedial  system 
is  so  to  justify  God  and  condemn  man  as  to  lay  a  reasonable 
foundation  for  undissembled  and  intelligent  penitence,  then 
is  it  not  necessary  to  take  up,  not  merely  the  fact,  but  the 
origin,  of  sin?  Are  there,  in  fact,  no  principles  of  equity 
and  honor  on  this  point  ?  Has  the  church  in  all  ages  been 
mistaken  in  supposing  that  there  are  ?  Is  it  not  possible 
that  men  may  so  misinterpret  the  Bible  as  to  represent  God 
as  introducing  sin  dishonorably  1  Are  we  bound  to  receive 
all  that  any  man  chooses  on  such  grounds  to  assert  con 
cerning  God  ?  Is  nothing  due  to  the  honor  of  God  1  If 
it  can  be  clearly  proved  that  the  common  theory  of  the  fall 
in  Adam  is  at  war  with  God's  honor,  and  that  preexistence 
is  not,  because  it  opens  the  way  for  such  an  origin  of  evil 
as  I  have  described,  is  there  no  sound  argument  in  all  this  ? 
So  far  am  I  from  giving  way  before  such  a  style  of  dog 
matic  assertion,  that  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  a  proper 
vindication  of  God  in  this  matter  is  one  great  work  both 
of  this  and  of  future  ages. 

All  that  God  is  doing,  in  the  present  dispensation,  is  but 
a  part  of  one  great  system.  We  cannot  understand  this 


480  CONFLICT    OF    AGES. 

system,  unless  we  consider  its  ends,  and  the  adaptation  of 
means  to  gain  them.  One  end  is,  to  put  down  all  hostile 
power,  rule  and  authority,  now  arrayed  against  God 
(1  Cor.  15  :  24,  25).  This  is  to  be  done  by  exposing  the 
nature,  criminality,  and  results  of  the  revolt  of  Satan 
and  his  followers  from  God.  This  implies  that  it  may  be 
and  must  be  known  that  it  originated  without  any  good 
reason,  and  from  no  fault  on  the  part  of  God ;  and  that  the 
creature  is  to  be  blamed  for  its  origin,  and  not  the  creator ; 
and,  in  order  to  see  this,  it  must  be  disclosed,  at  least  in 
principle,  how  and  why  it  did  originate. 

If  its  power  is  to  be  destroyed  by  turning  the  convictions 
of  intelligent  beings  against  its  authors,  then  it  cannot  be 
destroyed  till  they  are  convinced.  The  same  principles 
apply  in  the  case  of  man.  The  Bible  nowhere  represents 
the  conflict  between  God  and  his  rebellious  creatures  as  one 
of  mere  power.  God  is  to  be  "justified  in  his  sayings  and 
overcome  when  he  is  judged."  It  is  a  strife  which  is  to 
be  decided  not  by  naked  power,  but  by  good  conduct ;  that 
is,  by  benevolent,  honorable,  and  right  conduct. 

But,  as  it  is  a  strife  between  unequal  parties,  infinitely 
unequal,  there  is  a  sentiment  of  honor  in  such  a  case, 
imposing  the  highest  responsibilities  on  him  whose  power, 
knowledge  and  other  advantages,  are  greatest.  We  see 
the  action  of  this  principle  clearly  developed  in  this  life. 
In  a  moral  strife  of  an  elevated,  highly-educated  clergyman, 
of  great  powers  and  advantages,  with  an  inexperienced  boy, 
whilst  we  should  not  excuse  sin  in  the  boy,  yet  we  should 
judge  the  clergyman  by  the  law, —  to  whom  much  is  given, 
of  him,  also,  is  much  required. 

Especially,  if,  in  such  a  conflict,  the  original  advantages  of 
any  one,  for  good  conduct,  depended  not  on  his  own  will,  but 
on  that  of  one  in  conflict  with  him,  should  we  make  high 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   EVIL.  481 

demands  of  honor  on  the  more  powerful,  not  to  put  his 
antagonist  into  a  position  of  needless  weakness  and  disability. 
In  physical  conflicts,  all  admit  the  force  of  this  principle. 
If  a  powerful  man  should  give  to  a  weak  antagonist  a  lead 
sword  and  a  paper  shield,  and  arm  himself  with  a  steel 
sword  and  a  metal  shield,  would  there  be  any  honor  in  a 
victory  achieved  in  such  circumstances  ? 

In  this  wide  universe  no  thought  is  so  affecting  as  to 
exist  for  eternity,  and  to  be  called  on,  in  a  relatively  brief 
time  of  trial,  to  decide  the  character  of  that  eternity. 

In  the  case  of  every  being  who  thus  exists,  the  following 
things  do  not  depend  at  all  upon  his  will,  but  solely  on 
God's  :  The  fact  that  he  exists;  his  original  constitution  and 
powers ;  his  circumstances  in  the  system  of  God,  and  the 
influences  exerted  on  him  by  God,  by  way  of  statement, 
persuasion  and  motives  of  all  kinds,  adapted  to  secure  a 
right  deportment. 

In  order  to  justify  God,  and  to  condemn  his  sinful 
creatures,  all  the  sentiments  of  an  honorable  mind  demand 
that  it  be  made  to  appear  that,  in  all  these  things,  God  did 
all  for  his  creatures  that  our  highest  conceptions  of  justice, 
honor,  magnanimity  and  generosity,  demand ;  all  that  was 
needed  to  place  them  in  the  most  favorable  position  possible, 
all  things  considered,  for  good  conduct :  and  that  he  earnestly 
desired  their  success,  and  that  their  misconduct  was  against 
reason,  honor  and  right,  and  no  less  against  the  feelings  and 
wishes  of  God. 

If  any  say  that,  on  such  principles,  the  entrance  of  moral 
evil  cannot  occur,  I  reply,  the  statement  is  very  inconsiderate. 

What  is  the  standard  of  the  best  possible  constitution  and 

powers  ?     Is  it  not  an  adaptation  of  the  mind  to  know  God, 

to  commune  with  him  in  love,  and  to  act  in  a  system  with 

him?      But   this   implies,    of  necessity,   vast   powers   of 

41 


482  COXILICT    OF   AGES. 

conception  and  emotion,  powerful  impulses  to  action,  and 
great  energy  of  will.  To  fit  innumerable  minds,  so  consti 
tuted,  to  act  together  and  with  God  in  an  infinite  system, 
involves,  of  necessity,  trial,  just  as  it  did  in  the  case  of 
Christ,  in  order  properly  to  develop  and  perfect  them ;  and 
such  trial  involves  the  possibility,  and  even  the  danger,  of 
failure  through  unbelief. 

For,  as'  the  preserving  power,  in  time  of  trial,  is  a  belief 
of  the  statements  of  God  as  to  what  is  right  and  wrong, 
wise  and  unwise,  and  as  to  the  certainty  of  good  or  evil,  as 
law  is  observed  or  violated, —  and  if  none  but  God  knows,  or 
can  know,  intuitively,  all  truth,  and  the  full  extent  and 
certainty  of  good  or  evil  involved,  —  and  if  he  cannot  transfer 
his  own  infinite  perceptions  to  finite  minds,  then  no  course 
is  left  but  to  throw  his  creatures  on  FAITH  ;  and,  if  in  trial 
they  will  not  believe,  but  will  gain,  by  trial  against  law,  a 
knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  then  to  push  on  the  system  to 
its  final  results,  till  the  real  truth  in  the  case  shall  be 
developed  by  facts ;  God,  meantime,  enduring  with  infinite 
patience  the  unbelief  and  ingratitude  of  his  creatures,  till 
he  has  fully  acted  out  his  own  truth  and  righteousness,  and 
they  their  falsehood  and  wrong.  Thus  would  God  be  "jus 
tified  in  his  sayings,  and  overcome  when  he  is  judged." 

Such  a  view  of  the  origin  of  evil  docs  not  imply  the  neces 
sity  of  sinning,  as  a  means  of  moral  development.  For,  under 
such  a  system,  multitudes  have  persevered  without  sin,  and 
been  confirmed  in  holiness.  Indeed,  no  one  can  show  that 
of  the  great  majority  of  existing  beings  this  is  not  true. 
The  decided  probability  is  that  it  is  true. 

Nor,  in  the  case  of  any,  was  there  a  necessity  of  falling ; 
for,  though  limited  in  knowledge,  still  they  had  the  power 
to  believe  God,  and  so  to  stand  steadfast  in  obedience.  In 
the  highest  exercises  of  faith  there  is  always  a  vigorous 


THE    ORIGIN    OF   EVIL.  483 

exercise  of  the  will ;  and  it  was,  before  evil  entered,  in  the 
power  of  all  to  believe,  and  thus  to  live.  But  they  dis 
believed,  and  fell.  Of  this  we  see  a  symbol  in  the  tempta 
tion  in  Eden.  Belief  of  God  and  eating  of  the  tree  of  life 
are  connected.  Disbelief  of  God,  and  a  determination  to 
know,  by  trial,  the  truth  of  his  statements  as  to  good  and 
evil,  is  symbolized  by  a  determination  to  eat  of  the  tree  of 
knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  in  view  of  the  denial  of  danger 
and  the  hope  of  gain  which  proceeded  from  him  who  well 
remembered  his  own  guilty  fall. 

Such  a  view  of  the  origin  of  evil  is  a  full  defence  of 
God.  It  also  shows  that,  after  creation  and  the  entrance 
of  sin,  a  system  of  evolution,  with  a  well-defined  end, 
would,  of  necessity,  arise,  presenting  something  to  be  done 
by  God,  not  in  the  exercise  of  mere  naked  power,  but  in 
the  practical  development  of  all  his  excellences,  in  a 
system  in  which,  according  to  his  own  words,  he  is  as 
really  "  TRIED  AND  PROVED  "  as  are  his  creatures,  and 
in  which  in  a  peculiar  and  infinite  degree  he  develops 
patience,  long-suffering,  mercy,  grace,  self-sacrifice,  self- 
denial,  and  forgiving  love,  and  finally  overcomes  and  pros 
trates  all  his  foes  by  this  full  development  of  his  real  and 
infinitely  tried  and  proved  excellences,  in  contrast  with  the 
unbelief,  ingratitude  and  malevolence,  of  his  enemies. 

Not  only  is  this  view  of  the  origin  of  evil  better  than  any 
that  the  common  theory  of  the  fall  in  Adam  will  allow,  but 
it  is  in  striking  accordance  with  the  general  aspects  of  the 
Bible. 

That  sacred  book  discloses  to  us  upon  its  very  face  a 
system  of  evolution  designed  fully  to  bring  out  the  character 
of  God,  and,  by  so  doing,  to  give  him  a  glorious  intellectual 
and  moral  victory  over  all  his  foes.  But  the  very  nature 
of  such  a  system  shows  that  it  was  not  possible  for  God  to 


484  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

make  this  disclosure  of  himself  to  finite  creatures,  by 
direct  power,  and  without  the  acting  out  of  principles  and 
attributes  in  a  system.  This  is  a  necessary  inference  from 
the  infinity  of  God,  and  is  proved  by  facts ;  for  he  now  reaches 
this  result  at  the  expense  of  much  misery  and  the  ruin  of 
many  of  his  creatures.  By  this  he  makes  certain  principles 
so  clearly  known  as  to  remove  all  grounds  of  subsequent 
unbelief  in  coming  ages.  But,  if  God,  by  direct  power, 
could  have  made  the  universe  to  know  these  things  just  as 
surely  without  the  facts  as  with  them,  then  the  misery  is 
superfluous  and  malevolent. 

God.  also,  in  certain  cases,  has  recognized  the  limitation 
of  finite  minds  from  which  the  necessity  of  such  evolution 
arises.  He  says,  by  Moses,  of  the  Jews,  "  I  said  I  would 
scatter  them  into  corners.  I  would  make  the  remembrance 
of  them  to  cease  from  among  men,  were  it  not  that  I  feared 
the  wrath  of  the  enemy,  lest  their  adversaries  should  behave 
themselves  strangely,  and  lest  they  should  say,  Our  hand 
is  high,  and  the  Lord  hath  not  done  all  this ;  "  that  is,  lest 
I  should  be  misunderstood  by  limited  minds,  if  I  did  not 
thus  disclose  myself.  (Deut.  32:  26,  27.)  See,  also, 
Num.  14 :  15. 

We  notice,  also,  that  the  great  end  of  the  system,  in  all 
who  are  saved,  is,  in  a  peculiar  and  preeminent  degree,  to 
develop  and  perfect  FAITH.  Throughout  the  whole  system 
intense  energy  is  concentrated  on  this  point.  I  infer  from 
this  that  here  was  the  weak  point  where  evil  first  entered, 
just  as  if,  when  a  building  had  fallen  into  ruins,  we  should 
infer  that  the  weakness  which  caused  the  fall  lay  just 
where  the  architect  was  concentrating  all  his  skill  to  produce 
peculiar  strength  in  the  new  building. 

So,  then,  this  view  falls  in  with  all  known  laws  of  mind, 
and  with  the  leading  facts  and  character  of  the  system. 


THE    ORIGIN    OF   EVIL.  485 

On  the  other  hand,  to  ascribe  to  God  unlimited  direct 
power  to  produce,  without  evolution^  any  amount  of  knowl 
edge  and  faith,  in  an  infinite  system,  makes  the  introduction 
of  evil  not  so  much  a  mystery  as  a  needless  act  of  malev 
olence.  For,  what  if  it  does  give  occasion  to  God  to  display 
his  attributes  ?  Still,  by  the  supposition,  he  could  have 
caused  exactly  the  same  knowledge,  and  belief,  and  feeling, 
concerning  them,  without  any  such  evolution.  And  it  is  a 
self-evident  truth  that  it  is  malevolent  to  produce  results  at 
the  expense  of  eternal  misery  that  could  be  produced  just 
as  well  without  it. 

Indeed,  although  Dr.  Woods  denies  this  temporary  limita 
tion  in  the  power  of  God,  yet,  when  he  is  called  to  defend 
God,  in  view  of  the  existence  of  moral  evil,  he  resorts,  in 
fact,  to  the  same  theory.  "  My  answer  is,  it  may,  in  one  way 
or  another,  be  the  means  of  making  a  brighter  and  more 
diversified  display  of  the  divine  perfections,  and  thus  of 
giving  the  intelligent  creation,  as  a  whole,  a  higher  knowl 
edge  and  enjoyment  of  God.  It  may  be  the  means  of  illus 
trating  more  clearly  the  excellence  of  the  law  and  govern 
ment  of  God,  and  of  producing  ultimately,  through  his  moral 
kingdom,  a  purer  and  more  ardent  attachment  to  his  char 
acter  and  his  administration ;  so  that  his  intelligent  creatures, 
by  means  of  the  instruction  and  discipline  in  this  way 
afforded,  may  be  brought  ultimately  to  a  state  of  higher 
perfection  and  enjoyment  than  they  could  attain  in  any 
other  way."  Now,  if  God  had  the  direct  power  to  give  to 
his  creatures  the  knowledge  of  himself  and  his  law  and 
administration  which  is  here  spoken  of,  without  any  devel 
opments,  then  his  creatures  could  obtain  the  specified 
results  of  that  knowledge  in  another  way,  and  without 
development.  They  could  obtain  both  the  knowledge  and 
its  results  by  direct  divine  communication.  But  Dr. 
41* 


486  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

Woods  says  that  they  "could  not  attain  them  in  any 
other  way."  He  is  sustained  in  this  assertion  by  the  best 
of  reasons;  for,  if  God  could  have  communicated  them 
directly,  and  without  such  developments  of  suffering  as 
exist,  and  will  exist  forever,  then  he  is  malevolent,  as 
before  shown. 

Hence,  all  of  those  who  agree  with  Dr.  Woods  in  de 
fending  God  on  the  ground  that  by  moral  evil  and  its 
results  he  develops  himself  and  his  government  as  he  could 
not  otherwise  do, — and  all  know  how  numerous  they  are, — • 
do,  in  fact,  concede  the  very  principle  for  which  I  contend. 

Indeed,  on  this  question,  there  are  but  two  suppositions 
possible.  Either  the  limitation  of  divine  power  in  the 
earlier  stages  of  creation,  which  I  advocate,  exists,  or  it 
does  not  exist.  If  it  does  not  exist,  then  no  man  can 
defend  God  against  the  charge  of  malevolence.  If  it  does 
exist,  then  there  is,  as  I  have  shown,  a  simple  and  natural 
solution  of  the  origin  of  evil.  Out  of  this  first  origin 
would  naturally  arise  a  system  like  that  in  this  world,  for 
the  redemption  of  a  part  of  those  who  had  fallen,  and  the 
exposure  of  the  rest ;  the  whole  resulting  in  a  full  develop 
ment  of  God,  and  the  removal  of  all  future  occasions  of 
unbelief. 

If  the  limitation  in  question  does  not  exist,  if  God  has 
unlimited  power  to  communicate  knowledge  and  emotion 
without  development,  then  there  is  no  reason  for  the  ex 
istence  of  evil.  It  discloses  nothing  that  could  not  be  just 
as  well  disclosed  without  it.  It  makes  no  display  of  the 
attributes  of  God,  or  of  his  government,  that  could  not  be 
just  as  perfectly  made  without  it.  The  sufferings  of  the 
lost  are,  therefore,  so  much  needless,  and  worse  than  need 
less,  misery.  This  view  of  the  case  impeaches  the  character 


THE   ORIGIN    OF   EVIL.  487 

of  God.  darkens  the  whole  system,  sickens  the  mind,  and 
renders  non-existence  more  desirable  than  life. 

But  we  are  not  left  without  inspired  testimony  on  this 
point.  We  have  seen  that,  of  these  opposite  systems,  one 
implies,  and  the  other  excludes,  the  suffering  of  God.  If, 
then,  the  Bible  decides  the  question  whether  God  suffers  or 
not  in  consequence  of  the  entrance  of  evil,  it,  in  so  doing, 
decides  the  question  which  of  these  systems  is  true. 

But,  if  anything  is  prominent  and  uncontradicted  in  the 
Bible,  it  is  the  great  doctrine  that  the  entrance  of  evil  has 
involved  a  period  of  long-continued  suffering  to  God.  In 
deed,  it  is  the  grand  characteristic  of  the  present  system, 
that  all  the  glorious  results  to  which  God  is  conducting  the 
universal  system  have  been  purchased  at  the  expense  of 
his  own  long-continued  and  patiently-endured  sufferings. 
In  this  he  gives  to  the  universe  the  highest  possible  proof 
of  pure,  disinterested,  self-sacrificing  love. 

These  disclosures  of  the  Bible  settle  the  question  as  to 
the  origin  of  evil.  They  no  less  clearly  prove  that  the 
origin  of  the  sin  of  man  is  not  to  be  looked  for  in  this 
world. 

We  do  not  find  here  beings  with  uncorrupted  moral  con 
stitutions,  nor  in  the  most  favorable  circumstances.  We 
find  nothing  which  a  God,  such  as  the  Bible  discloses,  would 
be  irresistibly  moved  to  confer  on  new-created  minds,  in 
whose  death  he  had  no  pleasure,  and  whose  eternal  well- 
being  he  so  desired  as  to  be  filled  with  grief  at  their  ruin. 
In  view  of  such  facts,  there  is  but  one  conclusion  to  which 
we  can  rationally  come.  We  see  at  once  that  this  world  is 
not  the  abode  of  new-created,  upright  minds.  On  the  other 
hand,  this  is  a  system  of  sovereignty  towards  beings  who,  by 
sin,  have  forfeited  their  rights  as  new-created  minds.  The 
laws  of  honor  and  right,  towards  new-created  minds,  are  not 


488  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

observed  in  this  world,  because  men  are  born  under  a 
forfeiture  of  them,  and  are  "  by  nature  children  of  wrath." 
By  thus  running  back  to  a  previous  state,  we  can  reach 
a  sphere  in  which  those  principles  were  observed  towards 
new-created  minds  which  consist  with  the  character  of  God, 
as  revealed  in  the  Bible ;  and,  on  those  principles,  we  can 
account  for  all  the  native  depravity  and  entire  sinfulness  of 
man ;  and,  as  no  testimony  of  God  confines  us  to  this  world 
for  the  origin  of  human  depravity,  then,  if  these  things 
are  so,  the  character  of  God  and  the  general  principles  and 
facts  of  the  system  prove  that  sin  did  not  originate  here,  but 
that  this  dispensation  is  merely  a  step  in  the  great  system  of 
exposure,  by  which  God  is  to  be  disclosed,  truth  and  holi 
ness  vindicated,  and  error,  unbelief  and  sin,  to  be  exposed, 
paralyzed  and  punished,  forever. 


CHAPTER   XV. 

ARGUMENT    FROM     THE     SYSTEM. 

I  AM  now  prepared  to  resume  and  set  forth  the  argument 
from  the  agreement  of  the  phenomena  of  the  whole  system 
with  the  theory  of  preexistence,  and  from  a  view  of  its  rela 
tions  to  education  and  the  social  system.  I  have  already 
said  that  a  full  development  of  this  argument  will  require 
volumes,  rather  than  a  chapter  in  a  single  volume.  But,  to 
complete  the  outline  of  my  argument,  it  is  necessary  that  I 
state  some  of  the  points  involved,  and  indicate  the  mode  of 
their  development.  I  shall  state  nothing,  however,  for  the 
proof  of  which  I  am  not  willing,  or  rather  desirous,  to  be 
held  responsible. 

I  allege,  then, 

1.  That  a  system  based  on  preexistence  is  the  only  one 
which  admits  and  requires  such  principles  as  explain  what 
the  church  of  God  is,  and  develops  a  system  of  the  uni 
verse   centring  in  God  and  the  church,  according  to  the 
Scriptures. 

2.  It  is  the  only  system  which  demands,  or  even  alloAvs, 
of  a  natural  and  consistent  development  of  that  view  of  God 
which  is  peculiar  to  the   Scriptures, —  I  mean  that  view  in 
which  his  attributes  of  patience  and  long-suffering  are  pre 
sented  as  glorious  realities,  and  are  not  enervated,  or  rather 


490  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

annihilated,  by  the  assumption  that  God  cannot  suffer, 
which  is  a  doctrine  not  of  the  Bible,  but  of  a  severe  and 
unscriptural  philosophy. 

3.  It  alone  so  explains  the  operation  of  the  material  sys 
tem,  in  the  work  of  redeeming  the  church,  as  to  unfold  the 
reasons,  laws  and  use,  of  its  symbolical  and  typical  signifi 
cance,  the  laws  of  its  action  on  the  mind,  and  the  mode  of 
making  it  a  powerful  agent  in  the  cultivation  of  holiness,— 
and  as  thus  to  cut  up  by  the  roots  the  Platonic,  Gnostic  and 
Manichean  errors  as  to  this  part  of  God's  system. 

4.  It  alone   renders  possible  a  system  of  education  that 
shall  be  throughout  philosophical  and  consistent,  concealing 
none  of  the  maladies  of  the  mind,  and  furnishing  remedies 
for  them  all,  so  as  harmoniously  to  develop,  purify,  invigo 
rate  and  perfect,  all  the  powers  of  the  body  and  of  the  mind 
in  connection. 

5.  It  alone  can  put  an  end  to  that  paralysis  of  social  and 
religious  energy  which   is  produced,  as  I  have  shown,  by  a 
deep  and  radical  division  among  good  men,  which  is,  on  the 
present  system,  without  any  logical  remedy. 

6.  It  alone  can  present  to  the  human  mind  a  God  so  cor 
related  to  it  in  all  respects  that  he  shall  fill  its  highest  pos 
sible  conceptions,  and  fully  evolve  and  perfect  all  its  powers, 
and  lead  it,  by  the  full  influence  of  his  own  example,  to  a 
truly  humble,  unworldly,  self-sacrificing,  self-denying  life. 

7.  It  alone  averts  the  tendency  of  free  thought,  under  an 
elevated  system  of  education,  to  Pelagianism,  and  ultimately 
to  mere  naturalism  and  infidelity,  by  rendering  a  supernat 
ural  development  the  great,  fundamental,  and  truly  philo 
sophical  law  of  the  system, —  thus  on  this  point  harmoniz 
ing  reason  and  faith. 

8.  It  alone  leads  to  such  an  understanding  of  the  doctrine 
of   future    eternal    punishments   as,    connected   with    the 


ARGUMENT    FROM    THE    SYSTEM.  491 

previous  suffering  of  God,  shall  properly  throw  the  moral 
sympathies  of  all  holy  minds  on  the  side  of  God,  and  put  an 
end  to  that  reaction  which  tends  so  fatally  to  destroy  the 
true  and  indispensable  power  of  that  doctrine. 

9.  It  alone  leads  to  those  full  and  consistent  views  of 
God,  and  that  eminent  holiness  of  the  church,  which  shall 
render  possible  and  shall  introduce  the  predicted  marriage- 
supper  of  the  Lamb. 

10.  It  alone  so  presents  God  and  his  government  as  to 
furnish  the  logical  means  of  effecting  in  principle  and  spirit 
a  radical  destruction  of  those  despotic  civil  and  ecclesiastical 
organizations  in  which  is  the  great  stronghold  of  the  god  of 
this  world,   and  which  are  the   chief   impediment   to  the 
spread  of  the  gospel,  and  the  conversion  of  the  world. 

11.  It  alone  can  furnish  the  logical  means  of  binding 
Satan,  destroying  his  kingdom,  converting  the  world,  and 
reorganizing  human  society  in  accordance  with  the  prin 
ciples  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 

It  will,  I  suppose,  be  admitted  that,  if  these  statements 
are  true,  they  do  furnish  all  needed  evidence  of  the  truth  of 
preexistence. 

But,  of  course,  I  cannot  expect  them  to  be  believed  with 
out  proof.  Nor  can  I,  in  my  present  limits,  make  out  a 
full  defence  of  them  all.  But  I  state  them  as  theses  or  prop 
ositions  essential  in  order  fully  to  develop  my  argument, 
and  which  I  am  willing,  at  any  time  and  in  any  proper  way, 
to  defend. 

At  the  same  time,  I  shall  not  leave  them  all  entirely 
without  proof,  but  shall  select  some  of  the  most  fundamen 
tal  of  them,  and  proceed  to  their  exposition  and  defence, 
reserving  to  a  future  time  the  completion  of  the  work. 

It  is  obvious  that,  if  these  general  statements  are  true, 
the  doctrine  of  preexistence  not  only  removes  the  main 


492  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

causes  of  antecedent  derangements,  but  it  puts  the  whole 
system  into  working  order,  and  fits  it  for  the  present 
and  future  exigences  of  the  church.  By  this  I  mean,  not 
only  that  it  causes  the  main  moving  powers  of  the  system 
to  work  together,  as  already  shown,  but  also  that  it  intro 
duces  the  principles  of  harmony  into  the  whole  system  in 
all  its  parts,  thereby  rendering  possible  the  unity  of  the 
church,  and  preparing  the  wray  for  the  final  intellectual  and 
moral  victory,  which  is  to  be  an  end  of  all  strife. 

It  effects  this  by  taking  up  the  great  scriptural  facts 
which  have  been  held  without  any  enlarged  and  rational 
principle  of  connection,  and  combining  them  in  a  plan,  sim 
ple  and  sublime,  growing  out  of  clear  and  definite  principles, 
and  comprehending  the  end  of  the  universal  system,  and  its 
origin,  progress,  and  final  state. 

The  following  great  facts  lie  on  the  surface  of  the  Bible  : 
The  fall  of  Satan,  and  the  existence  of  a  kingdom  of  evil 
spirits  in  conflict  with  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  also  the  existence 
of  an  opposing  system,  centralized  by  Christ,  designed  to 
destroy  their  power  and  prostrate  them  forever.  The  ful 
filment  of  this  great  design  is  said  to  precede  and  close  the 
present  dispensation.  Another  coincident  prominent  fact  is 
the  redemption  of  the  church  through  the  atonement  of 
Christ,  a  work  the  completion  of  which  also  coincides  in 
time  with  the  prostration  of  the  kingdom  of  darkness. 
Another  striking  feature  of  the  Bible  is  that  the  present 
material  system  was  created  to  be  subservient  to  this  end, 
and  is  destined  to  a  future  renovation  when  this  dispensa 
tion  has  closed.  Finally,  the  word  of  God  presents  the 
church  as  united  to  God,  at  the  end  of  the  system,  by  a 
peculiar  and  eternal  covenant ;  as  sitting  down  with  him 
upon  his  throne,  and  inheriting  all  things,  and  reigning  with 
him  forever.  It  declares,  moreover,  that  the  great  end  of 


ARGUMENT   FROM   THE   SYSTEM.  493 

all  these  proceedings  is  the  disclosure  of  God  to  present  and 
future  generations  of  intelligent  minds  in  all  ages  and  all 
worlds  :  and,  in  accordance  with  this  end,  it  develops  a  full, 
wonderful,  and  in  some  respects  unanticipated  and  peculiar 
character  of  God. 

The  existing  theories  of  the  fall  in  Adam  have  never 
allowed  all  of  these  great  biblical  facts  to  be  combined  in 
any  simple,  natural  and  consistent  system  of  the  universe, 
growing  out  of  clear  and  definite  principles,  each  part  of 
which  harmonizes  with  every  other,  and  imparts  to  it 
strength  ;  but  they  have  rather  been  arranged  in  limited 
and  incomplete  systems,  always  leaving  some  of  the  facts 
the  relation  of  which  to  each  other  and  to  the  great  end  of 
the  system  of  the  universe  is  unknown. 

Indeed,  all  efforts  to  form  a  complete  system  of  the  uni 
verse  have  been  discouraged  by  many  as  adventurous  and 
profitless.  So,  indeed,  they  are,  if  the  system  is  not  law 
fully  constructed  out  of  revealed  facts.  But,  if  revealed 
facts  do  furnish  a  simple  and  sublime  system,  why  reject 
it  ?  Such  a  system  is  a  natural  want  of  the  mind.  Towards 
it  it  has  tended  in  all  ages.  History  is  full  of  theories  of 
the  universe.  All  men,  too,  at  this  day,  are,  in  fact,  in 
fluenced  by  theories  of  the  universe  of  some  sort, —  even 
those  who  affect  to  discourage  such  theories  in  others. 
Such  theories  may  not  have  been  developed  by  them,  and 
consciously  stated  and  adopted.  They  exist  rather  as  those 
elevated  reservoirs  of  water,  which  few  visit,  but  which 
nevertheless  impel  the  little  streams  of  water  which  are 
used  in  the  varied  business  of  daily  practical  life.  It  would, 
indeed,  be  quite  as  rational  to  scout  the  idea  of  elevated  and 
distant  reservoirs  as  expensive  and  out  of  the  reach  of  the 
community,  and  to  advocate  the  construction  of  a  mere 
system  of  water-pipes,  without  a  reservoir,  for  practical  use, 
42 


494  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

as  to  scout  and  repudiate  theories  of  the  universe.  The 
world  is  full  of  them ;  their  influence  is  felt  on  every  side. 
All  men  daily  use  trains  of  thinking  and  reasoning  that 
have  flowed  from  them,  even  if  they  have  never  consciously 
seen  and  adopted  them.  Those  who  repudiate  them  are 
often  great  admirers  of  Edwards.  But  did  he  aim  at  no 
system  ot  the  universe  ?  What  is  his  celebrated  and  eulo 
gized  treatise  on  God's  last  end  in  creation,  but  his  system 
of  the  universe  ?  What  is  his  ' :  History  of  the  Work  of 
Redemption."  but  that  system  of  the  universe  historically 
exhibited  ?  In  particular,  near  the  close  of  his  general  in 
troduction,  he  states,  in  five  particulars,  the  great  outlines 
of  that  system ;  and  all  of  these  particulars,  so  far  as  they  go, 
coincide  with  the  view  revealed  in  the  Bible. 

Moreover,  in  his  "  Miscellaneous  Observations  "  relative 
to  the  angels  and  heaven,  he  still  more  fully  illustrates 
various  parts  of  his  system  of  the  universe.  So,  then, 
those  who  eulogize  Edwards  ought  not  to  deny  and  under 
value  systems  of  the  universe.  In  like  manner  it  has  been 
fashionable  with  many  to  speak  of  the  question  of  the  origin 
of  evil  as  a  vain  and  profitless  inquiry ;  and  yet  many,  not 
to  say  all,  of  the  practical  religious  systems  of  the  day, 
spring  directly  out  of  different  theories  as  to  the  origin  of 
evil.  The  theory  of  divine  efficiency  is  at  its  roots  one 
theory  of  the  origin  of  evil  and  of  the  universe  ;  that  of  im 
putation  is  another  ;  and  that  of  the  New  Haven  divines  is 
still  another.  And,  even  if  few  ascend  to  these  fountain- 
heads  of  thought,  still  multitudes,  in  all  parts  of  the  land, 
are  daily  drawing  and  drinking  the  different  kinds  of  water 
which  flow  from  them. 

It  is,  therefore,  not  without  reason  that  Miiller,  in  hia 
great  work  on  sin,  says  u  that  this  great  problem  has  occu 
pied  the  spirits  not  merely  of  the  theologian  and  philosopher, 


ARGUMENT   FROM    THE    SYSTEM.  495 

on  account  of  their  calling,  but  of  all  to  whom  there  has 
been  a  deep  necessity  of  finding  a  rational  and  intelligible 
ground  of  the  true  significance  of  human  life.  AND  VERY 

D  O 

PROPERLY  so.  So  certain  as  the  religious  ethical  interests 
of  the  human  spirit  are  the  absolutely  highest,  so  certainly 
must  a  world-opinion  which  seeks  entirely  to  avoid  the 
question  concerning  the  origin  of  sin;  or  to  put  it  aside  as  a 
subordinate  matter,  appear  nothing  more  than  in  the  high 
est  degree  empty  and  abstract."  (Vol.  I.  p.  289.  Puls- 
ford's  Translation.)  The  origin  of  evil  and  a  system  of  the 
universe,  then,  are  lawful  objects  of  inquiry.  Let  us,  then, 
inquire  what  is  that  system  of  the  universe  which  the 
doctrine  of  preexistence  derives  from  the  word  of  God. 

A  true  view  of  the  system  of  the  universe  demands  two 
things  as  essential. 

First,  a  solution  of  the  intellectual  and  moral  system. 

Second,  a  true  view  of  the  relations  of  the  material  system 
to  it. 

That  theories  as  to  the  material  system  have  great  power 
over  the  doctrinal  development  of  the  moral  system,  all  expe 
rience  shows.  The  facts  of  greatest  interest  to  be  considered 
in  the  moral  system  are,  the  origin  and  progress  of  moral 
evil,  and  its  final  subjugation  by  the  dispensations  of  God. 

But  no  one  needs  to  be  told  how  extensively  the  doctrine 
has  prevailed,  both  in  the  heathen  and  Christian  world,  that 
the  true  cause  of  the  origin  of  sin  is  to  be  found  in  matter. 
It  pervades  the  Platonic  philosophy,  the  various  theories  of 
Gnosticism,  the  Manichean  system,  and  has  also  penetrated 
the  various  branches  of  the  Christian  church.  Indeed, 
Isaac  Taylor,  in  his  analysis  of  the  ascetic  corruptions  of 
ancient  Christianity,  does  not  hesitate  to  represent  this 
feature  of  Gnosticism  as  their  primal  source  ;  and  no  well- 
informed  thinker  will  call  in  question  the  correctness  of  this 


496  CONFLICT  OF  AGES. 

judgment.  Not  only,  therefore,  is  the  whole  theory  of  sin 
and  holiness,  of  morals  and  of  practical  sanctification,  vitally 
aifected  by  the  question  of  the  relation  of  the  material  sys 
tem  to  the  intellectual  and  moral,  but  the  influence  of  that 
relation  has  extended  to  the  whole  theory  of  the  system  of 
the  universe.  Indeed,  from  this  quarter,  it  is  possible,  by 
a  single  decision,  to  control  the  whole  system.  It  is,  then, 
a  matter  of  the  highest  practical  moment,  and  not  of  mere 
theory,  to  come  to  a  correct  view  of  the  relation  of  the 
material  to  the  intellectual  and  moral  system  of  the  uni 
verse. 

And  yet,  as  we  shall  soon  see,  the  mere  statement  of  the 
system,  growing  out  of  preexistence,  will  so  adjust  the  rela 
tions  of  the  material  world,  that  all  conflict  and  evil  influences 
from  that  quarter  will  cease. 

Let  us,  then,  consider  in  order,  first,  the  solution  of  the 
intellectual  and  moral  system  of  the  universe,  and  then  the 
relations  to  it  of  the  material  system. 

The  natural  and  scientific  solution  of  any  system  requires 
the  discovery  of  its  end,  and  of  the  relations  of  its  parts  to 
that  end  and  to  each  other.  Hence  Edwards  made  God's  end 
in  creation  the  subject  of  a  special  treatise,  in  which,  as  I 
have  said,  he  gives  his  system  of  the  universe.  He  comes 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  union  of  the  church  to  God  is  the 
final  end.  In  this  the  system  is  completed.  In  this  God 
rests. 

The  key  to  the  whole  system  is,  no  doubt,  to  be  found  in 
correct  views  of  the  church,  and  of  her  union  to  God.  But 
the  position  in  which  Edwards  leaves  the  matter  does  not 
fully  satisfy  the  mind.  Other  questions  will  arise,  which  he 
loes  not  answer.  What  is  the  peculiar  idea  of  the  church  ? 
For  what  great  end  was  she  redeemed  and  united  to  God  ? 
Why  is  her  final  union  to  God  spoken  of  as  a  marriage  ? 


1 


ARGUMENT   FROM   THE   SYSTEM.  497 

Till  these  questions  can  be  answered,  the  mind  does  not  rest 
in  the  solution  of  Edwards  as  full  and  thorough. 

To  these  questions  no  satisfactory  answer  has,  as  yet, 
been  given.  The  common  system  suggests  none,  and  ad 
mits  of  none.  That  which  I  advocate  does.  But,  before  I 
produce  it,  let  us  consider  existing  opinions  as  to  the  church. 

Of  all  writers  on  theology,  President  Edwards  the  elder 
thought  and  wrote  the  most  on  the  church  in  her  eternal 
relations.  Indeed,  it  is  the  grand  peculiarity  of  his  theology 
that  it  centres  around  this  point.  Hence  its  riches,  depth 
and  power.  His  history  of  the  work  of  Redemption,  as 
well  as  his  essay  on  the  end  of  God  in  creation,  are  so  far 
correct  as  they  put  the  union  of  God  and  the  church  in  the 
centre  of  all  things.  But,  the  mind  at  once  demands, 
What  is  the  church,  and  why  this  union  ?  Let  us,  then, 
consider  some  common  views  on  this  subject,  and  some 
which  Edwards  has  more  fully  developed. 

1.  It  is,  then,  generally  conceded  that  the  church  consists 
of  those,  and  those  only,  who  are  redeemed  through  the 
atonement  of  Christ,  and  regenerated  and  sanctified  through 
the  gracious  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit.     Indeed,  we 
might  almost  define  the  component  elements  of  the  church 
in  the  words  of  the  apostle   Peter,  by  saying  that  they  are 
those  of  the  human  race  who  were  ' '  elected  according  to  the 
foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father,  through  sanctification  of 
the   Spirit,  unto  obedience  and  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of 
Jesus  Christ."    These  in  heaven  will  all  sing  the  same  song 
of  redeeming  love,  and  none  can  sing  this  song  but  those 
thus  redeemed  from  this  earth. 

2.  It  is  also  generally  held  that,  through  the  redemption 
of  the  church,  there  has  been  made  a  peculiar  and  glorious 
development  of  the  divine  attributes,  the  influence  of  which 
is,  or  is  to  be,  felt  throughout  the  whole  intelligent  universe. 

42* 


493  CONFLICT    OF    AGES. 

For,  although  this  is  a  small  world,  and  the  human  race  in 
itself  is  relatively  unimportant,  yet,  as  all  created  beings  in 
all  worlds  have  a  common  interest  in  God,  whatever  devel 
ops  his  attributes  and  character  has  an  interest  which  is 
universal,  and  of  the  highest  kind. 

3.  It  is  also  held  that  the  redemption  of  the  church  is 
effected   through   a  severe   and   widely-extended    conflict. 
That  on  the  side  of  God  are  arrayed  legions  of  angels  of 
light ;   and  that  against  these  arc  arrayed  legions  of  fallen 
spirits,  under  Satan,  the  original  author  of  evil,  and  the 
great  leader  of  the  existing  rebellion  against  God. 

4.  It  is  also  admitted,  by  all  who  credit  the  Bible,  that 
when  the  redemption  of  the  church  is  completed  this  con 
flict  is  brought  to  a  final  close.     That  then  all  hostile  rule, 
and  authority,  and  power,  shall  be  put  down,  and  that  all 
enemies  shall  be  put  beneath  the  Redeemer's  feet.     (1  Cor. 
15:  24,  25.) 

5.  It  is  also  admitted  and  taught,  at  least  by  Edwards, 
that  the  church  will  not,  after  her  redemption,  be  merged  in 
the  great  mass  of  holy  beings  who  compose  the  kingdom  of 
God,  but  will  remain  forever  a  peculiar  and  united  body, 
sustaining  peculiar  and  eternal  relations  to  God  and  to  the 
rest  of  his  kingdom.     Of  this  the  proof  is  ample. 

6.  It  is  also  proved  and  taught  by  the  same  great  divine, 
that,  through  the  redemption  of  the  church  and  her  union 
with  Christ,  the  whole  intelligent  universe  will  be  brought 
together  and  united  under  one  head  in  Christ ;  and  that  of 
this  head,  in  virtue  of  her  union  to  Christ,  the  church  shall 
compose  a  part.     That,  in  virtue  of  this  union,  the  church 
shall  be  exalted  with  Christ  to  sit  upon  his  throne ;  and  that, 
in  consequence  of  this  elevation,  her  dignity  and  rank  shall 
exceed  those  of  the  angels,  and  of  all  other  orders  of  created 
beings.     In  short,  that  the  church  shall  be  nearest  of  all 


ARGUMENT   FROM    THE    SYSTEM.  499 

created  beings  to  Him  who  sitteth  on  the  throne  of  the  uni 
verse,  and  shall,  in  union  with  Him,  rule  over  that  universe 
forever.  Of  this,  too,  the  scriptural  proof  is  ample. 

7.  In  fine,  it  is  held  by  him  that  the  church  is  the  ulti 
mate  end  of  God,  not  merely  as  a  means,  but  as  what  he 
rejoices  in  and  is  satisfied  with  most  directly  and  properly, 
as  the  bridegroom  rests  in  and  is  satisfied  with  the  bride. 
In  his  own  words,  "  They  are  those  elect  creatures,  which 
must  be  looked  on  as  the  end  of  all  the  rest  of  the  creation, 
considered  with  respect  to  the  whole  of  their  eternal  dura 
tion,  and,  as  such,  made  God's  end, — and  must  be  viewed  as 
being,  as  it  were,  one  with  God.  They  were  respected  as 
brought  home  to  him,  united  with  him,  centring  most  per 
fectly,  and,  as  it  were,  swallowed  up  in  him,  so  that  his 
respect  to  them  finally  coincides,  and  becomes  one  and  the 
same  as  his  respect  to  himself."  For  his  proof  of  these 
points,  see  his  treatise  on  "  God's  last  end  in  creation." 

Such,  then,  are  some  of  the  points  which  are  more  or  less 
generally  conceded  by  intelligent  Christians  ;  and  no  one 
will  deny  that  they  present  to  the  mind  ideas  of  inconceiva 
ble  magnitude  and  interest.  Moreover,  these  views  are 
sustained,  in  all  their  great  outlines,  by  the  clear  and  decisive 
testimony  of  the  word  of  God. 

Yet  thus  far  enough  has  not  been  stated  to  satisfy  the 
rational  demands  of  the  mind  as  to  the  system  of  the  uni 
verse,  and  to  give  it  rational  repose.  Indeed,  until  a  more 
full  account  is  given  of  some  intelligible  ulterior  end  of 
these  proceedings,  they  have  to  the  mind  an  aspect  of  some 
thing  exaggerated  and  incredible. 

Why  is  one  part  of  God's  creatures  thus  made  the  end 
of  the  creation?  Why  so  valued,  honored  and  exalted 
above  the  rest?  Especially  are  these  feelings  excited,  if 
this  union  is  presented  as  the  ultimate  result  of  all  things 


500  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

If  the  holy  universe  are  all  created,  and  God  has  at  length 
completed  his  works  of  development,  so  that  nothing  remains 
but  to  study  and  adore  what  he  has  done, —  moreover,  if  the 
scriptural  account  of  heaven  and  its  joys  is  taken  as  nothing 
but  a  glowing  statement  of  the  enjoyment  of  the  pleasures 
of  holy  society  and  of  worship,  and  of  the  study  of  God's 
works,  and  if  only  indefinite  suggestions  are  made  of  un 
known  -modes  of  active  usefulness, —  then  the  mind  is  driven 
back  from  the  future,  as  if  everything  of  great  interest  had 
already  been  done,  and  as  if  the  mere  ends  of  study,  and 
enjoyment,  and  indefinite  action,  and  even  of  endless  worship, 
did  not  open  before  the  mind  a  future  equal  to  what  its 
capacities  can  comprehend  and  demand.  After  a  long 
training  on  earth  to  thought,  and  enterprise,  and  vigorous 
action,  it  needs  some  more  definite  and  intelligible  field  for 
the  exercise  of  its  powers,  and  some  affecting  and  exciting 
end  of  action. 

There  is  one  simple  idea,  naturally  flowing  from  the  sys 
tem  of  preexistence,  that  will  at  once  effect  all  this.  It  is 
this :  that  the  work  of  creating  and  training  intelligent 
beings  to  know  and  love  and  serve  God  is  but  just  begun, 
and  that  the  main  increase  and  extension  of  the  universe  is 
yet  to  come  ;  and  that  by  the  redemption  of  the  church  the 
universe  of  God  will  be  brought  into  such  a  state  that  that 
increase  can  be  made  without  any  hazard  of  any  new 
entrance  of  moral  evil,  and  be  continued  forever, — and 
especially  that  the  church,  owing  to  the  manner  of  her 
redemption,  and  her  peculiar  training,  will  be  prepared  to 
preside  over  arid  to  train  the  successive  generations  of  new- 
created  minds  as  no  others  can  ;  and  that,  for  this  end,  and 
also  as  the  resting-place  of  his  own  highest  and  most  pecu 
liar  affections,  she  will  be  united  to  God,  and  exalted  to 
reign  with  him  in  the  manner  that  has  been  described.  Also, 


ARGUMENT   FROM   THE   SYSTEM.  501 

that  the  relation  of  this  union  between  the  church  and  God 
to  this  increase,  is  the  reason  why  it  is  called  a  marriage. 

Viewed  in  this  light,  the  redemption  of  the  church,  as  set 
forth  in  the  preceding  statements,  derived  from  the  word  of 
God,  loses  its  aspect  of  an  insulated,  exaggerated  and 
incredible  transaction.  It  is  at  once  placed  in  the  centre 
of  the  system,  as  a  simple  and  rational  means  for  the  attain 
ment  of  ends  so  definite,  so  vast,  so  momentous,  so  deeply 
affecting,  that  they  at  once  fill  and  satisfy  the  mind  as 
worthy  of  God,  and  sufficient  fully  to  put  in  requisition, 
and  that  forever,  all  the  affections,  intellectual  powers,  and 
attainments  of  the  church.  The  object,  moreover,  is  one 
of  surpassing  interest  to  God,  and  to  all  other  orders  of 
created  minds,  forever. 

For,  if  in  the  redemption  of  the  church  God  aimed  to 
prostrate  Satan  and  his  hosts,  and  thus  to  put  the  universe 
in  such  a  state  that  an  endless  increase  could  be  secured, 
and  also  to  provide  the  means  of  effecting  it,  and  also  a 
peculiar  object  of  his  own  eternal  affections  in  their  highest 
form,  then  his  whole  system  is  not  only  perfectly  explained, 
but  is  seen  to  involve  the  highest  possible  good  of  the  uni 
verse.  We  see  the  importance  to  God,  and  to  the  whole 
universe,  of  the  redemption  of  the  church.  It  fully  justifies 
the  use  of  such  means  as  the  incarnation  and  the  atonement. 
It  shows  why  God  created  and  governs  all  things  with  refer 
ence  to  this  end.  It  shows  why  the  advent  of  the  day  of 
the  final  union  of  God  and  the  church  is  an  occurrence  of 
such  deep  interest  to  him  and  to  his  holy  kingdom.  It 
shows  why  it  is  such  a  crisis  in  the  history  of  the  universe, 
—  why  to  it  all  things  have  tended  from  the  beginning,  and 
why  from  it  all  things  will  forever  diverge,  after  the  great 
work  shall  be  finally  completed. 

It  would  be  a  matter  of  just  surprise,  in  view  of  all  the 


502  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

statements  of  the  word  of  God  which  have  been  set  forth, 
that  this  view  of  the  case  has  never  presented  itself  and 
been  adopted,  if  the  common  system  did  not  lead  the  mind 
away  from  it  and  exclude  it,  as  I  shall  soon  evince. 

Yet  at  one  moment  the  profound  and  original  Bellamy 
stood  on  the  very  verge  of  the  true  solution,  and  even  sug 
gested  one  of  its  main  features.  I  refer  to  the  sublime  idea 
of  the  future  indefinite  increase  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  after 
the  close  of  this  system.  But  the  peculiar  relations  of  the 
church  to  this  increase  he  did  not  discern,  nor  its  intima 
tion  by  the  analogy  of  the  marriage  of  the  church  to  God. 
Yet  the  views  which  he  did  advance  are  worthy  of  record, 
as  showing  what  ideas  a  contemplation  of  God's  system  as  a 
whole  suggested  to  his  mind,  with  reference  to  the  ultimate 
state  of  the  universe. 

He  is  defending  his  own  doctrine  concerning  the  wisdom 
of  God  in  the  permission  of  sin,  on  the  ground  that  He  must, 
in  all  that  he  does,  do  what  is  most  for  His  own  glory.  To 
this  his  opponent,  among  other  things,  replies  that  "God 
might  have  brought  all  possible  beings  into  existence  at 
once,  which  would  have  given  a  greater  display  of  his  per 
fections."  To  this  Bellamy  answers  that,  in  his  opinion, 
God  knows  and  has  done  exactly  what  was  wisest  and  best 
in  this  matter,  and  therefore  most  for  His  own  glory.  And 
to  this  he  adds : 

"How  know  we  if  God  thinks  it  best  to  have  a  larger 
number  of  intelligences  to  behold  his  glory  and  be  happy  in 
him,  but  that  he  judges  it  best  not  to  bring  them  into  exist 
ence  till  the  present  c  grand  drama '  shall  be  finished  at  the 
day  of  judgment?  That  they  may,  without  sharing  the 
hazard  of  the  present  confused  state  of  things,  reap  the  ben 
efit  of  the  whole,  through  eternal  ages  ;  whilst  angels  and 
saints  may  be  appointed  their  instructors  to  lead  them  into 


ARGUMENT   FFxOM   THE   SYSTEM.  503 

the  knowledge  of  all  God's  ways  to  his  creatures,  and  of  all 
their  ways  to  him,  from  the  time  of  Satan's  revolt  in  heaven 
to  the  final  consummation  of  all  things.  And  as  the  Jew 
ish  dispensation  was  introductory  and  preparatory  to  the 
Christian,  so  this  present  universe  may  be  introductory  and 
preparatory  to  one  after  the  day  of  judgment,  almost  infi 
nitely  larger.  That  this  will  be  the  case,  I  do  not  pretend 
so  much  as  to  conjecture.  But  I  firmly  believe  that  what 
is  best  on  the  whole,  that  infinite  wisdom  always  has  done, 
and  always  will  do;  and  here  I  rest."  (Works,  vol.  u. 
pp.  142—3.  New  York,  1811.) 

This  view  is  brought  forward  to  answer  an  objection,  and 
is  for  this  end  presented  as  a  hypothesis  which  no  man  can 
disprove.  Bellamy,  therefore,  saw  the  rationality  of  the 
idea  of  endless  increase  after  the  day  of  judgment ;  but  the 
indications  in  the  system  that  the  church  was  specifically 
prepared  for  that  very  end,  and  the  manifest  intimation  of 
it  in  the  analogy  of  marriage,  entirely  escaped  his  notice. 
If  he  had  compared  this  sublime  suggestion  of  his  with  all 
that  is  said  in  the  Bible  on  the  relations  of  the  church  to 
God,  he  would  have  found  reason  to  regard  it  as  more  than 
a  mere  supposition,  or  a  conjecture ;  he  would  have  found 
the  facts  and  the  language  of  the  Bible  relative  to  the 
church  all  tending  to  this  result,  fully  explained  by  it,  and 
incapable  of  any  other  satisfactory  explanation. 

The  idea  of  increase  after  the  day  of  judgment  is  also  the 
basis  of  Pollok's  Course  of  Time. 

Two  youthful  sons  of  Paradise  are  introduced  as  walking 
high  on  the  hills  of  immortality, 

"  Casting  oft  their  eye  far  through 
The  pure  serene,  observant  if,  returned 
From  errand  duly  finished,  any  came, 
Or  any,  first  in  virtue  now  complete, 
From  other  worlds  arrived,  confirmed  in  good." 


504  CONFLICT   OF    AGES. 

One  such  they  saw  approaching  the  place  where  they 
stood.  This  place  is  the  residence  of  God,  the  centre  of  the 
universe.  Of  it  the  poet  thus  speaks  : 

"Mountains  of  tallest  stature  circumscribe 
The  plains  of  Paradise,  whose  tops,  arrayed 
In  uncreated  radiance,  seem  so  pure, 
That  naught  but  angel's  foot,  or  saint's  elect 
Of  God,  may  venture  there  to  walk  ;  here  oft 
The  sons  of  bliss  take  morn  or  evening  pastime, 
Delighted  to  behold  ten  thousand  worlds 
Around  their  suns  revolving  in  the  vast 
External  space,  or  listen  the  harmonies 
That  each  to  other  in  its  motion  sings. 
And  hence,  in  middle  heaven  remote,  is  seen 
The  mount  of  God  in  awful  glory  bright. 
Within,  no  orb  create  of  moon,  or  star, 
Or  sun  gives  light ;  for  God's  own  countenance, 
Beaming  eternally,  gives  light  to  all ; 
But  further  than  these  sacred  hills  his  will 
Forbids  its  flow  —  too  bright  for  eyes  beyond. 
This  is  the  last  ascent  of  Virtue  ;  here 
All  trial  ends,  and  hope  ;  here  perfect  joy, 
With  perfect  righteousness,  which  to  these  heights 
Alone  can  rise,  begins,  above  all  fall." 

Of  himself  he  thus  speaks  : 

"  Virtue,  I  need  not  tell,  when  proved,  and  full 
Matured,  inclines  us  up  to  God  and  heaven, 
By  law  of  sweet  compulsion  strong  and  sure  ; 
As  gravitation  to  the  larger  orb 
The  less  attracts,  through  matter's  whole  domain. 
Virtue  in  me  was  ripe.  —  I  speak  not  this 
In  boast,  for  what  I  am  to  God  I  owe, 
Entirely  owe,  and  of  myself  am  naught. 
Equipped,  and  bent  for  heaven,  I  left  yon  world, 
My  native  seat,  which  scarce  your  eye  can  reach, 
Rolling  around  her  central  sun,  far  out, 
On  utmost  verge  of  light :  but  first  to  see 
What  lay  beyond  the  visible  creation, 
Strong  curiosity  my  flight  impelled." 


ARGUMENT   FROM   THE    SYSTEM.  505 

On  his  way  he  saw  the  hell  to  which  had  been  consigned 
the  lost  of  the  human  race,  and,  full  of  wonder  and  astonish 
ment,  pressed  on  towards  Paradise  for  an  explanation.  Such 
an  explanation  the  youthful  sons  of  Paradise  could  not  give, 
and  therefore  conducted  him  to  another  teacher. 

"  Something  indeed  we  heard  before, 
In  passing  conversation  slightly  touched, 
Of  such  a  place  ;  yet  rather  to  be  taught, 
Than  teaching,  answer  what  thy  marvel  asks, 
We  need  ;  for  we  ourselves,  though  here,  are  but 
Of  yesterday  —  creation's  younger  sons. 
But  there  is  one,  an  ancient  bard  of  Earth, 
Who,  by  the  stream  of  life  sitting  in  bliss, 
Has  oft  beheld  the  eternal  years  complete 
The  mighty  circle  round  the  throne  of  God  ; 
Great  in  all  learning,  in  all  wisdom  great, 
And  great  in  song  ;  whose  harp  in  lofty  strain 
Tells  frequently  of  what  thy  wonder  craves, 
While  round  him  gathering  stand  the  youth  of  heaven, 
With  truth  and  melody  delighted  both  ; 
To  him  this  path  directs,  an  easy  path, 
And  easy  flight  will  bring  us  to  his  seat." 

The  sum  of  the  reply  is  thus  given  by  the  ancient  bard  : 

"  The  place  thou  sawst  was  hell ;  the  groans  thou  heardst 
The  wailings  of  the  damned,  of  those  who  would 
Not  be  redeemed,  and  at  the  judgment  day, 
Long  past,  for  unrepented  sins  were  damned. 
The  seven  loud  thunders  which  thou  heardst,  declare 
The  eternal  wrath  of  the  Almighty  God. 
But  whence,  or  why  they  came  to  dwell  in  woe, 
Why  they  curse  God,  what  means  the  glorious  morn 
Of  resurrection,  these  a  longer  tale 
Demand,  and  lead  the  mournful  lyre  far  back 
Through  memory  of  sin  and  mortal  man. 
Yet  haply  not  rewardless  we  shall  trace 
The  dark  disastrous  years  of  finished  Time, 

43 


506  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

Sorrows  remembered  sweeten  present  joy. 
Nor  yet  shall  all  be  sad  ;  for  God  gave  peace, 
Much  peace,  on  earth,  to  all  who  feared  his  name." 

The  narrative  of  the  bard  occupies  the  remaining  books 
of  the  poem. 

Here,  then,  as  in  Bellamy,  we  have  the  idea  of  endless 
increase,  but  the  relation  of  the  church  to  it  is  not  seen. 

Indeed,  the  moral  education  of  the  youth  of  heaven,  in 
various  worlds,  is  represented  as  often,  if  not  always,  com 
pleted  without  the  knowledge  of  the  history  of  this  world 
and  of  the  church.  Even  some  of  those  in  Paradise  do  not 
know  enough  of  it  to  instruct  a  new  comer. 

And  yet  the  poet  thus  sets  forth  the  result  of  the  history 
of  this  world.  At  the  close  of  the  judgment,  and  of  the 
burning  of  the  earth,  angels  and  saints,  chanting  songa  of 
praise,  ascend  with  the  Redeemer  to  the  eternal  gates. 

"  Thus  sung  they  God,  their  Saviour  :  and  themselves 
Prepared  complete  to  enter  now,  with  Christ, 
Their  living  Head,  into  the  Holy  Place. 
Behold  !  the  daughter  of  the  King,  the  bride, 
All  glorious  within,  the  bride  adorned, 
Comely  in  broidery  of  gold  !  behold, 
She  comes,  apparelled  royally,  in  robes 
Of  perfect  righteousness,  fair  as  the  sun, 
With  all  her  virgins,  her  companions  fair,  — 
Into  the  Palace  of  the  King  she  comes, 
She  comes  to  dwell  forevermore  !     Awake, 
Eternal  harps  !  awake,  awake,  and  sing  !  — 
The  Lord,  the  Lord,  our  God  Almighty,  reigns  !  " 

He  sees  the  universal  and  unchangeable  system  opening 
as  a  wedding,  resulting  in  the  endless  covenant  union  of 
God  and  the  church.  He  also  believes  in  an  indefinite 
increase  and  education  of  new-created  minds,  and  yet  sees 


ARGUMENT   FROM   THE   SYSTEM.  507 

no  peculiar  relation  of  the  church  to  so  great  a  work. 
Edwards,  also  (vol.  n.  p.  605),  holds  that  some  in  heaven 
will  be  a  kind  of  ministers  in  that  society, —  "ministers 
to  their  knowledge  and  love,  and  helpers  of  their  joy, 
as  ministers  of  the  gospel  are  here;"  but  he  does  not 
intimate  the  relation  of  the  church  as  in  a  peculiar  sense 
the  teacher  of  new-created  minds,  although  he  notices 
that  "the  glorification  of  the  church,  after  the  last  judg 
ment,  is  represented  as  the  proper  marriage  of  the  Lamb." 
He  also  teaches  that  they  possess  all  things  "in  their  Head, 
who  has  the  absolute  possession  of  all,  and  rules  over  all, 
and  disposes  all  things  according  to  his  will ;  for  by  virtue 
of  their  union  with  Christ,  they  also  shall  rule  over  all. 
They  shall  sit  with  him  in  his  throne,  and  reign  over  the 
same  kingdom."  It  is,  therefore,  the  more  remarkable  that 
the  idea  of  an  endless  increase  of  new-created  minds,  to  be 
educated  and  trained  by  the  church  in  coming  ages,  does  not 
appear  ever  to  have  occurred  to  the  mind  of  Edwards  as 
implied  in  the  analogy. 

And  yet,  it  is  the  less  to  be  wondered  at,  because  the 
common  system  tends  to  lead  the  mind  away  from  such  a 
result.  In  that  system  the  redemption  of  the  church  is 
looked  on  as  merely  a  work  of  divine  manifestation,  not 
growing  by  any  temporary  limitation  of  divine  power  out  of 
the  antecedent  history  of  the  universe,  but  merely  acted  out 
for  the  benefit  of  orders  of  beings  already  in  existence,  who 
look  on  as  spectators,  just  as  if  the  universe  were  already 
nearly  or  quite  infinite,  and  as  if,  although  the  redemp 
tion  of  the  church  is  an  act  eminently  honorable  to  God. 
yet,  in  the  words  of  Chalmers,  "It  is  but  an  ephemeral 
doing  in  the  history  of  intelligent  nature ;  and  that  there 
remains  time  enough  to  him  for  carrying  round  the  visita- 


508  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

fcions  of  as  striking  and  peculiar  a  tenderness  over  the  whole 
extent  of  his  great  and  universal  monarchy." 

But,  if  it  is  the  redemption  of  the  church  which  both  marks 
and  causes  the  subjugation  of  moral  evil  for  the  universe,  and 
if  it  prepares  the  way  for  an  endless  increase  of  new-created 
beings  to  be  trained  by  the  church,  then  it  is  not  one  of 
many  ephemeral  transactions,  but  is  the  great  event  to  which 
all  things  tend  from  the  beginning,  and  from  which  all 
things  again  diverge  through  all  future  ages. 

To  a  king  it  is  not,  surely,  an  ephemeral  transaction,  when 
he  obtains  and  is  united  to  a  royal  bride,  who,  during  his 
life,  is  to  preside  with  him  over  his  kingdom,  and  educate 
and  train  his  children  to  be  princes  in  his  empire.  It  is  a 
peculiar  arrangement,  which  affects  his  whole  life  and  reign, 
and  all  the  interests  of  his  empire,  as  none  other  can. 
Moreover,  it  awakens  emotions  higher  and  more  peculiar 
than  any  other  relation  or  event. 

If,  then,  the  final  and  eternal  union  of  the  church  to  God 
is  something  analogous  to  this, —  if  the  love  by  which  they 
are  united  is  peculiar  in  its  nature  and  intensity,  if  the 
union  opens  the  way  to  an  endless  increase  of  the  family  of 
God,  and  if  all  new-created  beings  are  to  be  trained  by  the 
church  for  stations  of  influence  and  honor  in  the  kingdom 
of  God, — then  it  is  a  peculiar  arrangement,  which  affects  his 
whole  existence  and  reign  in  all  future  ages  and  in  all 
worlds,  and  all  the  interests  of  his  empire  also,  as  none 
other  can.  It  is  the  key  to  the  system  of  the  universe. 

We  now  see  at  once,  as  before  stated,  a  sufficient  reason 
why  the  redemption  of  the  church  should  be  God's  great 
end  during  this  dispensation,  and  why  he  manifests  an 
interest  so  peculiar  in  all  pertaining  to  this  result. 

But,  it  may  be  said,  What  has  preexistence,  or  the  fall  in 


ARGUMENT  FROM   THE   SYSTEM.  509 

Adam,  to  do  with  all  this  ?  Why  may  not  the  same  system 
be  reached,  on  either  supposition  ? 

I  answer,  because  such  a  system  as  I  have  developed, 
centring  in  the  church,  presupposes  and  rests  upon  prin 
ciples,  with  reference  to  the  origin  of  moral  evil,  which  pre- 
existence  calls  for  and  admits,  but  the  opposite  view  does 
not  call  for,  but  excludes.  And,  so  long  as  they  are  not 
called  for,  but  excluded,  it  is  not  possible  to  see  any  neces 
sity  of  a  church,  any  crisis  calling  for  her  redemption,  any 
thing  peculiar  to  be  effected  by  her,  any  reason  for  a  pecu 
liar  union  between  her  and  God,  any  peculiar  work  for  her 
to  do.  Let  us  once  more  consider  these  principles. 

I  have  already  stated  two  theories  of  the  relations  of 
divine  power  to  a  system  of  free  agency :  one  assuming 
that  God  has  absolute  and  unlimited  power  at  all  times  to 
secure  universal  holiness,  if  he  will ;  the  other  teaching  a 
temporary  limitation  of  divine  power  in  the  earlier  stages 
of  creation,  in  consequence  of  the  liability  of  finite  minds  to 
unbelief  and  distrust  of  God,  when  exposed  to  the  trials 
which  inevitably  pertain  to  an  infinite  system,  and  which 
are  necessary  to  their  own  development  and  perfection. 
These  opposite  views  are  also  logically  connected  with  two 
opposite  views  of  the  character  of  God.  One  asserting  that 
the  power  of  God  is  at  all  times  so  unlimited  over  minds  that 
his  will  has  been,  is,  and  ever  will  be,  so  completely  done, 
that  he  is,  and  ever  has  been,  entirely  free  from  all  grief,  pain 
or  suffering  of  any  kind,  from  the  sins  of  his  creatures. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  held  that  God  in  reality,  as  he 
asserts,  has  never  had  any  pleasure  at  all  in  the  revolt  and 
ruin  of  any  of  his  creatures,  but  has  been  truly  grieved  at 
it;  and  has  altogether  preferred  their  eternal  life.  But  that 
n  temporary  limitation  of  divine  power,  in  the  earlier  stages 
of  creation,  owing  to  the  liability  of  the  first  generations  to 
43* 


510  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

unbelief  and  sin,  has  involved  a  season  of  trial  and  suffering 
to  God,  the  result  of  which  will  be  such  a  full  unfolding  of 
his  character  and  truth  in  act  as  shall  at  length  remove 
from  all  future  generations  the  causes  and  the  occasions  of 
unbelief. 

On  these  principles,  we  see  that  there  never  has  been  any 
occasion  for  God  originally  to  introduce  sin  of  set  purpose ; 
and  that  his  character  and  feelings,  his  sense  of  honor  and 
right,  are  such  that  he  could  not  do  it.  All  that  his  own 
benevolence  and  sense  of  equity  and  honor  would  allow  him 
to  do  would  be  to  create  the  first  generation  of  beings  with 
such  powers  and  faculties  as  would  best  fit  them  to  be  in 
union  with  himself,  at  the  foundation  of  an  eternal  system, 
destined  ever  to  increase,  and  then  to  subject  them  to  such 
a  system  of  probation  and  education  as  should  be  best 
adapted  to  develop,  elevate  and  perfect,  their  characters. 
Even  so  did  Christ,  though  sinless,  learn  obedience  by  suf 
fering  ;  and  thus  was  he  made  perfect. 

If,  then,  in  consequence  of  the  temporary  limitation  of  his 
power,  caused  by  the  want  of  antecedent  history  and  devel 
opments,  a  part  of  them  distrusted  him,  and  revolted  in  the 
hour  of  trial,  and  afterwards,  from  successive  generations, 
seduced  others  to  join  them,  thus  organizing  and  extending 
a  hostile  kingdom,  then  another  step  would  become  neces 
sary  to  God,  and  that  is,  to  prepare  for  himself  an  order  of 
beings  whose  love  to  him  should  be  so  all- comprehending 
and  immutable  that  neither  trial  nor  exaltation  should  ever 
lead  them  to  revolt ;  and  who  should  be  peculiarly  prepared 
to  train  others,  and  who  should,  therefore,  be  fit  to  be  with 
him  at  the  foundation  of  an  eternal  kingdom,  and,  at  the 
same  time,  in  the  process  of  preparing  these,  disclose  so 
fully,  through  trial  and  suffering,  his  own  glorious  charac- 


ARGUMENT   FROM   THE   SYSTEM.  511 

ter  and  truth,  as  to  avert  the  occasions  of  unbelief  in  all 
future  generations  of  created  beings. 

It  is  obvious,  then,  that  these  principles  not  only  explain 
what  the  church  is,  and  what  is  her  place  in  the  system, 
but  also  show  that,  from  the  beginning  of  the  creation,  all 
things  tended  to  such  an  issue.  In  short,  that  the  redemp 
tion  of  the  church  and  her  union  to,  God,  as  a  preparatory 
step  to  the  endless  increase  of  the  universe,  is  but  a  natural 
and  perfectly  intelligible  development  of  the  principles 
which  I  have  stated. 

Of  course,  the  opposite  view,  which  denies  these  princi 
ples,  cannot  furnish  any  such  solution  of  existing  facts.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  real  existence  of  such  facts  as  flow  from 
and  are  accounted  for  by  these  principles,  is  a  strong  argu 
ment  sustaining  their  truth. 

But  we  do  find  disclosed  in  the  Bible  a  state  of  things 
exactly  corresponding  to  what  would  result  from  such  prin 
ciples,  and  which,  in  the  light  of  such  principles,  receives  a 
glorious  and  satisfactory  solution,  disclosing  a  system  wor 
thy  of  God,  and  meeting  and  filling  the  highest  possible 
conceptions  of  the  human  mind.  Is  there  not,  therefore, 
the  best  possible  reason  to  believe  that  both  the  principles 
and  the  system  are  true  ? 

These  presumptions  are  carried  up  to  an  absolute  cer 
tainty,  when  we  consider  that  the  God  disclosed  in  the  Bible 
has  the  character  which  is  demanded  by  this  system,  and  is 
repudiated  by  the  other. 

The  character  of  the  God  of  the  Bible  is  definite  and 
strongly  marked.  Among  all  of  his  characteristics,  none  is 
more  strongly  marked  than  his  sensibility  to  the  appropri 
ate  causes  of  pleasure  and  pain  to  benevolent,  honorable 
and  upright  minds.  This  sensibility  is  asserted  in  every 
form  of  language,  and  nowhere  denied. 


512  CONFLICT    OF    AGES. 

He  is,  therefore,  represented  as  peculiarly  sensitive  to 
tlie  existence  and  developments  of  sin.  It  is  at  war  with 
every  impulse  and  desire  of  his  nature.  It  causes  him 
great  and  long-continued  suffering.  Indeed,  the  true 
energy  and  the  highest  glory  of  his  character  cannot  be 
conceived  till  we  understand  that  such  is  the  fact,  and  yet 
that  no  impatience,  or  bitterness,  or  malignant  resentment, 
or  spirit  of  unholy  revenge,  has  ever  been  or  ever  will 
be  disclosed.  In  the  midst  of  the  highest  trials  of  his 
patience,  he  is  entirely  tranquil  and  self-possessed.  He  is 
the  very  God  of  peace.  No  conception  of  God  presents  his 
moral  power  in  so  striking  a  light.  Moreover,  in  this  view, 
God  himself  being  judge,  his  highest  glory  lies.  Such 
is  the  system  of  the  universe,  with  respect  to  God  and  the 
church,  which  naturally  grows  out  of  the  doctrine  of  pre- 
existence  as  I  have  set  it  forth,  and  which  evinces  its  truth 
by  assigning  to  God  his  true  character  as  presented  in  the 
Bible,  and  taking  up  and  combining  in  a  harmonious  and 
glorious  plan  the  leading  facts  of  the  Bible, —  a  thing  which 
the  opposing  system  can  never  do. 

For,  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  doctrine  that  God  has 
at  all  times  unlimited  power  to  produce  holiness  and  ex 
clude  sin,  it  represents  him  as  having  first,  without  any 
necessity,  permitted  and  ordered  its  introduction  by  Satan, 
and  then  deliberately  called  into  existence,  in  addition,  all 
the  sin  that  is  in  this  world,  by  a  system  designed  and 
adapted  to  produce  just  such  an  amount  of  sin.  A  fallen 
race  was  needed  in  order  to  exhibit  his  attributes  in  a  work 
of  redemption;  and  therefore  God  arranged  a  system  to 
secure  such  a  race,  composed  entirely  of  new-created  beings, 
all  of  whom  should  be  so  affected  by  the  act  of  the  progeni 
tor  of  the  race  as  either  to  be  born  sinners,  or  else  so  de 
ranged  in  their  moral  constitution  that  they  certainly  would 


ARGUMENT  FROM   THE   SYSTEM.  513 

sin,  and  be  so  entirely  and  deeply  depraved  that  no  power 
but  that  of  God  could  bring  them  into  a  state  of  holiness. 
All  this,  too,  is  effected  and  rendered  sure  by  an  act  over 
which  they  had  not  the  slightest  control,  and  in  which 
they  had  no  part.  Certainly,  no  one  can  properly  describe 
this  as  anything  but  a  plan  (to  be  sure,  for  alleged  benevo 
lent  ends)  to  produce  sin  on  a  great  scale,  and  in  all  the 
generations  of  men. 

Out  of  this  sinful  race  thus  produced  a  church  is  to  be 
redeemed ;  but,  on  such  principles,  what  is  the  church  ?  for 
what  end  redeemed  ?  why  united  to  God  ?  Of  what  import 
ance  is  it  to  the  universe  ? 

Can  it  at  all  augment  the  power  of  God  to  arrest  the 
progress  and  destroy  the  sway  of  moral  evil?  Not  at  all. 
That  was  always  infinite  and  unlimited.  Can  it  put  the 
universe  into  a  state  any  more  favorable  for  the  increase  of 
new-created  beings,  to  be  kept  from  sinning  and  perfected 
in  holiness  ?  Not  at  all ;  for  the  power  of  God  to  produce 
and  perfect  such  was  always  unlimited.  Can  it  make  any 
manifestation  of  God,  adapted  to  control  minds,  that  invests 
him  with  new  moral  power,  that  could  not  otherwise  have 
been  exerted  ?  Not  at  all ;  for  the  power  of  God  to  control 
minds,  on  this  theory,  has  always  been  full,  infinite  and  un 
limited.  There  is,  therefore,  no  occasion  for  a  system 
designed  to  augment  that  power  by  removing  from  it  tem 
porary  limitations.  In  short,  there  is  no  significance  to  the 
church  as  the  central  idea  of  the  system  of  the  universe  ; 
no  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  importance  to  God  of  her 
redemption,  nor  of  his  deep  interest  in  the  work,  nor  of  his 
amazing  sacrifices  to  effect  it,  nor  of  his  joy  in  its  com 
pletion. 

Nor  is  this  all ;  it  not  only  renders  it  impossible  on  such 
grounds  to  combine  the  great  facts  of  the  Bible  into  any 


514  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

consistent  system  of  the  universe,  springing  out  of  intelli 
gible  principles,  and  carrying  them  out  into  glorious  results, 
but  it  represents  the  great  central  measure  of  the  system 
as  founded  on  a  transaction  which  many,  even  of  its  advo 
cates,  are  constrained  to  admit,  cannot  be  defended  on  any 
principles  of  honor  and  right  which  the  mind  of  man  was 
made  to  form,  but  must  be  shrouded  under  the  veil  of  faith 
and  of  mystery.  How  can  a  proceeding  of  this  kind  be 
made  the  part  of  any  intelligible  system  of  the  universe  ? 
How  can  it  exalt  our  conceptions  of  God,  or  do  any  good, 
if  it  needs  to  be  defended  by  an  appeal  to  mystery,  against 
our  intuitive  convictions  of  equity  and  honor,  and  must  be 
sustained  by  blind  faith  rather  than  sustain  faith  by  its  own 
power  ? 

It  is  important,  however,  to  discriminate  the  views  which 
I  have  presented  from  others  wTith  which  they  may  be  con 
founded. 

There  is  a  theory  which  makes  the  essential  nature  of 
free  agency  such  that  the  limitation  of  divine  power  is  not 
temporary,  and  confined  to  the  earlier  generations  of  creat 
ures,  but  is  eternal.  Such  was  the  theory  of  Origen. 
Accordingly,  he  held  that,  after  fallen  spirits  had  been 
restored  by  a  material  system,  and  it  had  been  destroyed, 
they  and  others  would  again  fall,  and  another  similar  sys 
tem  be  needed ;  and  thus  that  there  would  be  an  eternal  suc 
cession  of  such  systems,  and  of  redemption  through  them. 
From  this  view  Augustine  very  properly  revolted.  But  it 
is  not  the  necessary  or  natural  development  of  preexistence, 
and  is  no  reason  whatever  for  rejecting  it,  although  Augus 
tine  presents  it  as  such.  Origen  had  plainly  no  idea  of  the 
nature  or  design  of  the  church.  He  did  not  see  that  God 
by  her  would  exclude  any  future  entrance  of  sin.  He  based 
his  theory,  as  Mosheim  has  clearly  shown,  on  the  false  phi- 


ARGUMENT   FROM   THE   SYSTEM.  515 

losophy  of  Ammonius  Saccas,  and  not  upon  the  great  and 
leading  facts  of  the  word  of  God.  There  is  nothing  in  un- 
perverted  free  agency  that  cannot  be  forever  controlled  by 
moral  means,  after  the  full  disclosure  of  God  has  been  made 
through  the  redemption  of  the  church  ;  so  that  moral  evil 
will  never  again  enter,  and  no  work  of  redemption,  like  the 
present,  ever  be  needed  or  undertaken  again. 

Nor  are  the  views  which  I  have  presented  to  be  con 
founded  with  the  opinions  of  those  who  apply  to  this  world 
the  principles  which  I  apply  to  a  previous  state.  In  ex 
plaining  the  origin  of  evil  in  this  world,  it  is  alleged  by 
some  that  there  may  be  a  limitation  of  divine  power  such 
that  God  could  not  exclude  evil -from  a  moral  system;  or,  at 
least,  that  he  could  not  exclude  it,  or  the  present  degree  of 
it,  from  the  best  moral  system,  because  such  is  the  nature 
of  free  agency  that,  for  aught  that  we  can  prove,  it  may 
enter.  In  order  so  to  accord  with  facts  as  to  justify  God, 
these  principles  ought  to  be  applied  to  a  system  and  a  state 
of  things  in  which  God  gives  to  new-created  minds  the 
best  constitutions  and  circumstances.  If,  in  such  circum 
stances,  evil  enters,  it  implies  the  limitation  assumed;  and 
this  justifies  God. 

But  to  the  state  of  things  in  this  world  these  principles 
do  not  at  all  apply.  The  system  of  this  world  is  obviously 
a  system  of  sovereignty  towards  fallen  minds,  and  not  a 
system  designed  to  illustrate  the  principles  of  equity  and 
honor  towards  new-created  minds.  Men  do  not  enter  this 
world  with  the  best  possible  constitutions,  and  are  not  placed 
in  the  best  possible  circumstances.  For  new-created  minds 
God  could  do  and  ought  to  do  much  more  than  to  give  them 
such  constitutions  and  circumstances  as  are  found  in  this 
world.  Hence,  the  principles  which  can  be  easily  and  con 
sistently  applied  to  a  preexistent  state  do  not  at  all  apply 


516  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

to  this  world.  If  there  is  a  limitation  of  God's  power,  the 
proper  place  to  illustrate  that  principle  is  a  state  in  which 
new-created  beings  do  receive  the  best  possible  constitutions 
and  are  placed  in  the  most  favorable  circumstances.  If  out 
of  such  a  system  sin  springs,  and  a  kingdom  of  evil  is 
formed,  then  there  would  naturally  be  formed  a  system  of 
sovereignty  like  that  in  this  world,  composed  of  fallen 
beings,  who  had  forfeited  their  original  rights. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

THE     MATBKIAL     SYSTEM. 

v 
THE  union  of  mind  with  matter  is  the  great  peculiarity 

and  the  great  wonder  of  the  present  system ;  and  nothing  is 
more  important  than  to  know  why  God  established  this 
union,  and  how  he  designed  it  to  operate.  Surely  the 
influence  on  the  mind  of  a  material  system  so  vast  and 
powerful  cannot  be  neutral.  If  rightly  viewed  and  used, 
immense  good  must  result ;  if  otherwise,  immense  evil. 
Such  is  the  testimony  of  facts.  Platonism  and  Gnosticism 
regarded  matter  as  the  cause  of  sin,  and  refused  to  ascribe 
it  to  the  original  free  choice  of  the  mind  in  a  spiritual 
sphere.  The  mind,  in  itself,  is  pure  and  well-disposed,  but 
is,  unfortunately,  linked  to  a  degrading  and  corrupting 
material  system.  Notice  now  the  results :  false  concep 
tions  of  holiness  and  sin,  a  spurious  religious  experience, 
torpor  of  the  moral  sense,  an  entire  perversion  and  subver 
sion  of  the  system  of  grace,  the  introduction  and  undue 
honor  of  celibacy,  penances,  bodily  austerities  and  other 
ascetic  practices,  monasteries,  nunneries,  and  a  universal 
corruption  and  derangement  of  the  whole  social  system. 

Thus  the  effect  of  these  and  similar  systems  has  been  to 
turn  away  the  eye  from  the  original  entrance  of  evil  in  the 
spiritual  sphere,  and  to  throw  off  the  blame  and  guilt  of  sin 
44 


518  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

from  sinners  upon  the  material  world,  and  thus  to  derange 
the  entire  operation  of  the  system  of  God. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  doctrine  of  a  preexistent  fall,  not 
only,  as  I  have  shown,  combines  the  great  facts  of  the  Bible 
relating  to  a  spiritual  world  into  a  simple  and  sublime  sys 
tem  of  the  universe,  growing  naturally  out  of  clear  and  defi 
nite  principles,  but  it  also  so  adjusts  the  relations  of  the 
material  world  to  it  as  to  remove  all  the  pernicious  results 
which  have  been  introduced  in  past  ages,  by  false  views  of 
the  relations  of  the  material  to  the  moral  system. 

It  does  this  in  a  manner  simple,  thorough  and  effectual. 
It  throws  the  primitive  origin  of  all  moral  evil  out  of  this 
world,  into  a  spiritual  system.  It  thus  at  once  simplifies 
the  problem,  and  accounts  for  the  origin  of  all  moral  evil  on 
the  same  spiritual  principles.  It  exculpates  matter,  and 
throws  the  whole  responsibility,  where  it  ought  to  rest,  upon 
minds.  It  not  only  excludes  the  possibility  of  ascribing  the 
origin  of  sin  to  this  material  system,  but  enables  us  to  show 
that  it  was  designed  and  adapted  to  aid  in  the  great  work 
of  moral  renovation.  It  was  made  with  the  express  design 
of  illustrating,  by  powerful  analogies,  the  character  and 
system  of  God.  If  properly  used,  it  is  adapted  to  destroy 
the  moral  torpor  of  the  mind  by  its  pungent  illustrations, 
and  to  give  vividness  and  power  to  its  conceptions  of  spiritual 
things.  The  intense  and  quickening  energy  of  the  language 
of  the  Bible  is  greatly  owing  to  the  divine  skill  with  which 
this  principle  is  employed.  Light,  darkness,  heat,  cold, 
summer  and  winter,  seed-time  and  harvest,  day  and  night, 
sickness,  health,  life,  death,  marriage,  and  all  the  incidents 
and  affections  of  the  family  state,  food  and  raiment,  and  all 
the  lawful  employments  of  life,  are  parts  of  a  material  sys 
tem,  planned  with  wisdom  so  divine,  that,  if  intelligently 
0  used,  they  arouse  and  stimulate  the  torpid  soul  with  a 


THE    MATERIAL   SYSTEM.  519 

quickening  and  renovating  energy.  Of  such  materials  our 
Saviour's  parables  are  framed.  From  such  sources  he  drew 
those  short  and  pungent  statements,  which,  once  heard,  are 
never  forgotten,  but  ever  after  burn  like  fire  in  the  soul. 
This  material  world,  in  all  its  beauties,  in  all  its  sublimity, 
in  all  its  powers  and  terrors,  symbolizes  God,  and  both 
allures  and  warns.  God  meanwhile  suspends  the  full  action 
of  his  emotions,  which  man  could  not  endure,  and  beseeches 
him  to  become  holy,  to  escape  those  spiritual  terrors  the 
emblems  of  which  surround  him  on  every  side.  Thus  the 
whole  system  is  one  of  mercy,  patience  and  forbearance,  on 
the  part  of  God,  and  of  wise  and  powerful  adaptation  to 
renovate  the  depraved  mind  of  man.  The  Lord,  in  wisdom, 
founded  the  earth,  and  established  the  heavens ;  and  wisdom 
crieth  aloud  and  uttereth  her  voice  in  the  streets. 

Thus  at  a  blow  does  this  system  cut  off  the  very  roots  of 
Platonism,  Gnosticism  and  Manicheism.  and  of  the  ascetic 
systems  and  social  abuses  which  have  arisen  from  these 
errors,  and  also  the  systems  of  sacramental  regeneration 
and  sanctification,  on  which  the  great  religious  despotisms 
of  ages  are  based. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  doctrine  of  the  fall  in  Adam  tends 
directly  to  introduce  a  system  of  virtual  Gnosticism.  For, 
if,  as  the  church  teaches,  the  soul  is  created  by  God,  and  the 
body  alone  descends  from  Adam,  then  it  is  natural  to  regard 
the  body  as  the  cause  of  sin.  And  this  tendency  has  devel 
oped  itself  in  extensive  results,  in  the  Romish  church,  in 
the  Lutheran  and  in  the  Calvinistic. 

I  am  aware  that  the  system  of  divine  efficiency,  which 
teaches  that  God  causes  all  men  to  sin  by  his  direct  energy, 
because  Adam  sinned,  avoids  this  difficulty, —  but  it  is  only 
by  a  peculiar  system  as  to  the  necessity  of  divine  agency  in 
all  volition,  which  does  not  accord  with  the  general  and 


520  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

intuitive  convictions  of  man.  Moreover,  this  system  fur 
nishes  no  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  redemption  of  the 
church,  and  her  relations  to  the  universe.  For,  if  no  man 
can  choose  except  through  divine  efficiency,  and  if  this  effi 
ciency  is  competent  to  produce  whatever  choice  God  pleases, 
then  there  is  no  need  of  any  system  of  development  in  order 
to  accumulate  moral  power  such  as  has  been  described  in 
explaining  the  relations  of  the  redemption  of  the  church  to 
the  universe  ;  nor  is  there  any  valid  reason  for  the  exist 
ence  of  evil,  or  of  redemption  at  all. 

I  am  also  aware  that  the  system  of  imputation  endeavors 
to  avoid  Gnosticism,  by  ascribing  sin  to  the  necessary  con 
sequences  of  God's  creating  the  soul  without  original  right 
eousness,  and  the  withdrawal  of  supernatural  influences  from 
man  as  a  punishment  of  the  sin  of  Adam,  leaving  him  to 
become  necessarily  corrupt  and  depraved.  But  this  does 
not  at  all  relieve  the  matter  ;  for  it  virtually  destroys  the 
guilt,  and  even  the  nature,  of  sin,  by  ascribing  it  to  the 
mere  fact  that  a  new-created  moral  agent  exists  without  a 
righteousness  and  a  divine  influence,  the  enjoyment  of 
which  does  not  at  all  depend  on  his  own  will.  Even 
Augustine  has  virtually  decided  that  there  would  be  no 
criminality  if  sin  were  to  originate  from  such  a  cause. 
Moehler  also  repudiates  this  theory,  as  implying  that  in 
a  mere  finite  nature,  as  such,  there  is  a  necessary  sinful- 
ness.  He  says,  "  The  question  before  every  other  is,  to 
account  for  the  wounds  of  the  spirit,  especially  for  the  per 
versity  of  the  will.  Would  the  spirit  of  man,  because  it  is 
an  essence  distinct  from  God,  when  considered  in  itself,— 
that  is  to  say,  as  void  of  the  gift  of  supernatural  grace,  and 
as  a  bare  finite  being, —  be  found  in  that  attitude  of  opposi 
tion  to  God  in  which  man  is  now  born  ?  Then  man,  merely 
as  a  finite  being,  would  be  of  himself  disposed  to  sin,  and 


THE   MATERIAL   SYSTEM.  521 

would  not  be  so  merely  through  the  abuse  of  his  freedom." 
He  saw  that  if  man,  merely  as  a  creature,  is  opposed  to 
God,  then  God  would  be  the  author  of  sin. 

Hence  the  most  natural  and  obvious  theory  of  explaining 
the  fall  of  Adam  has  been,  in  all  ages,  a  reference  to  the 
influence  of  the  material  system  on  the  soul ;  and  thus  the 
doctrine  of  the  fall  in  Adam  tends  strongly  and  directly  to 
Gnosticism,  and  all  its  pernicious  results. 

Hence  the  extensive  tendency  to  interpret  the  statements 
of  Paul,  John  and  others,  concerning  "  the  flesh,"  and  "  the 
body  of  sin,"  as  referring  to  the  material  system,  and  not  to 
the  internal  and  original  depravity  of  the  spirit.  The  radi 
cal  erroneousness  of  this  interpretation  has  been  thoroughly 
exposed  by  Edwards,  Miillerand  Moehler;  and  yet  the  com 
mon  theory  of  the  fall  in  Adam  directly  tends  to  originate 
and  confirm  this  Gnostic  mode  of  exposition.  Moehler,  on 
the  supposition  that  sin  is  transmitted  through  the  body, 
asks,  with  great  force,  "How  could  the  infusion  of -such  a 
corporeal  poison  convey  to  the  soul  the  germs  of  all  which, 
in  the  most  comprehensive  sense,  constitutes  self-seeking,— 
to  wit,  revolt  against  God,  arrogance  and  envy  towards  our 
fellow-men,  vanity  and  complacency  in  regard  to  ourselves  ? 
If  so  disordered  a  spiritual  condition,  if  so  distempered  a 
moral  state,  could  be  engendered  by  the  connection  of  the 
soul  with  the  body,  it  would  be  then  certainly  very  difficult 
to  uphold  the  notion  of  moral  evil." 

On  the  other  hand,  the  doctrine  of  preexistencc  teaches 
not  only  that  the  material  system  does  not  cause  human 
depravity,  but  that  it  was  created  and  arranged  to  aid  in  the 
work  of  sanctification  and  redemption.  It  explains,  on  this 
ground,  its  analogies  to  the  spiritual  system,  and  its  typical 
significance ;  also  the  principles  of  the  formation  of  lan 
guage,  and  the  proper  mode  of  so  using  the  material  system 
44* 


522  CONFLICT  or  AGES. 

as  to  produce  the  highest  sanctifying  results.  It  can  trans 
form  this  whole  world  into  a  temple  of  God,  and  all  the 
lawful  acts  and  duties  of  life  into  a  system  of  worship 
through  types  of  higher  spiritual  things,  and  the  family 
state  into  a  little  miniature  of  the  universal  system. 

Having  thus  constructed  that  high  and  copious  reservoir 
from  which  the  lower  systems  of  thinking,  feeling  and  action 
flow,  let  us  look  at  the  quality  and  the  effects  of  the  streams 
that  flow  from  it. 

Or,  to  resume  our  original  figure,  having  disclosed  the 
end  and  restored  to  harmonious  action  the  moving  powers 
of  the  system,  and  exhibited  the  relations  of  its  parts,  let 
us  next  look  at  its  practical  working  in  some  of  its  details. 


CHAPTER    XVII. 

RESULTS     AND     PRACTICAL     TENDENCIES. 

THE  preceding  discussion  is  an  ample  defence  of  the  doc 
trine  of  preexistence  against  the  charge  of  being  a  mere 
theory,  of  no  practical  moment.  It  has  evinced  that  this 
doctrine  is  not  devoid  of  proof  elevated,  dignified  and  logical 
in  its  nature,  and  certain  in  its  results.  It  has  also  shown 
that  it  can  do  what  nothing  else  is  able  to  effect ;  it  can 
rescue  Christianity  from  its  present  perilous  position  with 
out  injury,  and  with  great  benefit  to  the  depth  and  power 
of  all  its  doctrines.  By  its  present  perilous  position,  I 
mean  a  position  in  which  it  has  no  real  defence  against  the 
charge  of  imputing  the  highest  conceivable  injustice  and 
dishonor  to  God. 

I  have  often  wondered  at  what  has  appeared  to  me 
to  be  a  strange  temerity  among  good  men  on  this  sub 
ject.  One  would  think  that  the  natural  feeling  of  their 
hearts  would  be  to  shrink  sensitively  from  even  a  possibility 
of  imputing  the  least  dishonor  and  injustice  to  God,  and 
much  more  so  from  the  fearful  hazard  of  imputing  them 
to  him  on  the  highest  conceivable  scale.  One  would  think 
that,  if  any  portion  of  scripture  seemed  to  imply  such  dis 
honor  to  God,  a  cautious  and  thorough  investigation  of  the 
laws  of  interpretation  would  be  first  made,  to  see  if  another 
view  of  the  passage  were  not  possible.  And  yet  this  has 


524  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

not  been  the  case.  It  has  been  conceded  repeatedly  that 
the  acts  ascribed  to  God,  in  his  dealings  with  the  human 
race  through  Adam,  do  appear  dishonorable  and  unjust, 
according  to  any  principles  of  equity  and  honor  which  God 
has  made  the  mind  of  man  to  form.  And  yet,  simply  on 
the  basis  of  Rom.  5 :  12 — 19,  and  without  any  adequate 
search  for  a  more  legitimate  mode  of  interpretation,  they 
have  for  ages  gone  on  to  ascribe  these  acts  to  God.  When 
I  think  who  God  is,  and  what  the  redemption  of  the  church 
is,  and  how  inconceivable  is  the  injury  of  basing  this  great 
work  on  an  act  of  infinite  dishonor  and  injustice,  I  cannot 
but  feel  that  a  more  hazardous  and  tremendous  risk  was 
never  run  by  intelligent  Christian  men. 

Look,  for  a  moment,  at  the  facts  of  the  case.  Review  the 
principles  of  honor  and  of  right,  as  I  have  stated  them  in 
the  first  book.  Weigh  well  the  fulness  and  power  of  the 
concessions  of  the  truth  of  these  principles  made  by  the 
church,  from  age  to  age.  Think  of  the  great  fact  that  God 
has  so  made  the  human  mind  that  it  cannot  but  recognize 
their  truth.  Think  of  the  profundity  and  power  of  the 
feelings  which  were  made  to  respond  to  them.  Think  of 
the  great  fact  that  God  made  them  to  be,  beyond  compari 
son,  the  ruling  feelings  of  the  soul,  and  that  the  principles 
to  which  they  respond  are  at  the  very  basis  of  his  govern 
ment,  and  then  think,  if  you  can,  how  much  dishonor  to 
God,  and  evil  to  man,  is  involved  in  placing  the  whole  sys 
tem  of  Christianity  on  a  basis  that,  in  the  utmost  conceiva 
ble  degree,  does  violence  to  all  these  feelings  and  principles. 

Notice,  then,  the  full  confession  of  the  great  body  of  the 
church,  that  the  only  defence  against  the  charge  of  doing 
this  has  been  the  theory  that  all  men  had  forfeited  their 
rights  as  new-created  beings,  by  "  an  act  over  which  they 
had  not  the  slightest  control,  and  in  which  they  had  no 


RESULTS   AND   PRACTICAL   TENDENCIES.  525 

agency,  '  and  which  took  place  before  they  existed :  and 
also  the  confession  of  Calvin,  that  nothing  is  so  remote 
from  common  sense  as  this  defence ;  and  of  Pascal,  that 
nothing  appears  so  revolting  to  our  reason,  and  that  it 
seems  to  be  impossible  and  unjust;  notice,  also,  that  the 
great  body  of  the  church  has  decided,  and  that  justly,  that 
there  is  no  defence  of  the  acts  ascribed  to  God  in  the  plea 
of  his  rights  as  a  sovereign, —  and  the  fearful  state  of  the 
case  becomes  too  painfully  apparent.  And  to  this  the  facts 
of  history,  as  I  have  set  them  forth,  correspond. 

I  do  not  hesitate,  therefore,  to  say  that  the  human  mind 
cannot  conceive  of  a  more  dangerous  mode  of  representing 
the  acts  and  defending  the  character  of  God  than  this ;  and 
unless  it  can  be  shown  that  my  interpretation  of  Rom.  5  : 
12 — 19  is  erroneous,  then  still  to  retain  it  will,  to  say 
the  least,  be  in  the  highest  degree  perilous  to  religion, 
and  that  in  a  case  of  the  utmost  conceivable,  moment. 
But  I  am  well  assured  that  the  erroneousness  of  my  inter 
pretation  cannot  be  shown.  And,  indeed,  there  is  no  reason 
to  wish  that  it  could  be.  Who  ought  to  desire  to  continue 
such  a  mode  of  representing  and  defending  God,  if  another 
and  a  better  mode  is  possible,  or  even  conceivable  ?  What 
can  be  worse  than  the  representations  that  now  exist  in  the 
church,  and  the  pernicious  influence  of  which,  for  centuries, 
I  have  endeavored  at  least  in  part  to  set  forth  ? 

And,  now,  is  it  nothing  practical  that  preexistence  can 
deliver  the  church  at  once  from  such  a  state  of  things  ?  Is 
it  nothing  practical  that  it  places  the  redemption  of  the 
church  on  a  basis  in  the  highest  degree  honorable  to  God  ? 
Is  it  nothing  practical  that  it  brings  experimental,  spiritual 
and  supernatural  Christianity,  as  set  forth  by  Paul,  Augus 
tine  and  Edwards,  into  sympathy  with  the  principles  of 
equity  and  honor,  those  powerful  and  all-pervading  ele- 


526  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

ments  of  humanity,  from  which  it  has  been  alienated,  and 
the  operation  of  which  has  so  constantly  tended  to  create  a 
strong  repulsion  against  it  ?  Is  it  nothing  practical  that 
the  deep  misunderstanding  of  the  divine  character  which  it 
has  always  produced  should  cease  ?  Is  it  nothing  practical 
that  the  real  God  of  the  universe  should  be  seen  as  he  is, 
and  not  with  his  real  feelings  of  long-suffering,  compassion, 
sympathy  and  grief,  misrepresented  or  denied,  and  his 
glories  obscured  by  dark  clouds  of  injustice,  changing  the 
whole  universe  into  a  system  of  sadness  and  gloom,  if  not 
of  horror  1 

These  are  the  questions  at  issue,  as  I  have  repeatedly 
shown ;  and  they  are  real  questions,  they  are  PRACTICAL 
QUESTIONS,  and  not  visionary  speculations.  A  God  who 
was  seen  and  felt  to  avow  and  act  on  the  principles  of  honor 
and  right  which  I  have  laid  down,  and  to  manifest  the  feel 
ings  which  I  have  set  forth,  would  exert  inconceivable 
moral  power ;  for  the  mind  of  man  is  made  to  be  acted  on 
by  such  feelings  and  principles,  clearly  apprehended  in 
such  a  being  as  God,  with  inconceivable  energy.  There  is 
no  power  like  it,  or  to  be  compared  with  it.  It  can  agitate 
the  nations,  and  shake  the  globe. 

All  this  power  Christianity  now  loses,  and  encounters  an 
equal  and  all-pervading  repulsion.  This  is  the  great,  the 
main  reason  why  the  energy  of  Satan  on  earth  is  so  im 
mense.  Here  is  the  secret  of  his  strength ;  here  is  the 
hiding  of  his  power. 

There  is,  therefore,  a  power  of  emotion  in  the  human 
heart  hitherto  entirely  undeveloped  on  the  great  scale  by 
Christianity.  As  now  presented,  it  can  never  develop  it. 
Nay,  more,  as  I  have  shown,  it  directly  tends,  as  education 
and  moral  culture  increase,  to  division  and  paralysis. 
Never  —  I  say  it  confidently — never  will  Christianity  bring 


RESULTS   AND    PRACTICAL   TENDENCIES.  527 

out  the  whole  power  of  human  emotion  in  sanctified  forms, 
till  it  is  based  upon  preexistence. 

To  what  has  been  said  I  would  now  add  that  the  scrip 
tural  exposition  of  the  system  of  the  universe,  as  centring 
in  the  union  of  God  and  the  church,  inasmuch  as  it  implies 
and  is  based  on  the  doctrine  of  preexistence,  still  further 
takes  that  doctrine  out  of  the  region  of  mere  abstract 
speculation,  and  GIVES  IT  A  PRACTICAL  EMBODIMENT 

IN  THE  GREAT  CENTRAL  MEASURE  OF  THE  KINGDOM  OF 

GOD.  A  measure  which  is  the  main  subject  of  the  inspired 
oracles  of  God  from  beginning  to  end ;  for  the  sake  of  which 
the  material  system  was  organized,  and  to  execute  which 
the  providence  of  God  is  administered. 

There  is  no  way  in  which  principles  are  so  clearly  and 
surely  taught  as  by  a  practical  embodiment  in  a  working 
system.  The  laws  and  powers  of  steam,  as  well  as  the  prin 
ciples  of  mechanics,  are  practically,  definitely  and  clearly 
embodied  in  a  steam-engine.  When  the  raging  ocean- waves 
had  swept  away  Winstanley  in  the  lighthouse  which  he  had 
constructed  on  the  Eddy  stone  rocks,  it  was  plain  that  he 
had  not  embodied  in  it  the  principles  of  architectural 
strength  which  the  case  required.  When  Smeaton,  after  a 
second  wreck  and  ruin  had  occurred,  at  last  constructed  a 
lighthouse  which  could  defy  every  wind  and  wave,  then,  in 
that  structure,  he  did  practically  reveal,  in  an  embodied 
form,  what  were  the  laws  of  architectural  strength  in  such 
a  case.  There  is  no  kind  of  revelation  clearer  than  this. 

In  like  manner,  to  illustrate  great  things  by  small,  the 
whole  of  the  present  dispensation  is  a  system  of  sublime 
measures,  embodying  principles  and  aiming  at  a  glorious 
result.  The  result  is  an  imperishable  spiritual  structure, 
including  the  universe,  under  God  and  the  church  as  the  head. 
The  measures  are  the  formation  of  the  material  system,  the 


528  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

introduction  of  the  human  race  into  it,  the  incarnation  of 
God,  the  atonement,  the  redemption  of  the  church  and  her 
union  to  God,  and  the  prostration  of  the  empire  of  Satan. 
In  all  this  there  is  no  theory ;  it  is  simply  the  actual  present 
working  system  of  the  universe.  Such  a  course  of  things 
is  not  arbitrary ;  it  implies  principles,  it  grows  out  of  rea 
sons  ;  and  these  principles  and  reasons  are,  therefore, 
embodied  in  the  system. 

Is  it  not,  then,  plain,  even  to  a  demonstration,  that  what 
ever  is  thus  embodied  is  taught  with  a  certainty,  definiteness 
and  power,  that  nothing  can  surpass  ? 

Now,  that  the  idea  of  preexistence  is  thus  embodied  in 
the  system  of  the  universe,  I  have  undertaken  to  show ;  and 
I  think  that  I  have  shown  it.  I  have  considered  the  char 
acter  of  God  and  the  system  of  the  universe,  not  as  imagined 
in  speculation,  but  as  revealed  in  the  inspired  oracles.  I 
have  surveyed  its  parts,  and  their  relations  and  combina 
tions,  and  their  great  end  as  a  whole.  And  I  have  asserted 
that  the  great  idea  of  preexistent  sin,  as  I  have  set  it  forth, 
is  clearly  and  definitely  embodied  in  the  system  as  a  whole. 

Now,  with  regard  to  this  mode  of  reasoning,  it  will  be 
conceded,  I  think,  that  it  is,  as  I  have  said,  in  its  nature 
elevated  and  dignified,  and,  if  my  doctrine  is  properly  made 
out  by  it,  sure  and  absolute  in  its  results. 

To  the  power  of  this  course  of  reasoning  we  are  also  to 
add  the  argument  derived  from  the  fact  which  I  have 
proved,  that  nothing  but  the  assumption  of  preexistence  can 
vindicate  the  character  of  God,  and  prevent  the  great  mov 
ing  powers  of  the  system  from  so  conflicting  with  each  other 
as  in  a  great  measure  to  paralyze  the  energies  of  the  church, 
and  afflict  her  with  innumerable  evils. 

That  such  modes  of  reasoning,  if  legitimately  used,  must 
lead  to  sure  and  infallible  results,  no  rational  man  will 


KESULTS   AND    PRACTICAL   TENDENCIES.  529 

deny.  The  only  course  that  remains  is  to  show  that  my 
use  of  them  has  not  been  legitimate. 

It  is  worthy,  therefore,  of  the  more  particular  attention, 
that  the  argument  against  the  doctrine  of  preexistence  is  not, 
like  the  argument  in  its  favor,  based  upon  legitimate  general 
principles,  and  the  intellectual  arid  moral  necessities  of  the 
system.  It  cannot  be  shown  that  the  doctrine  of  preexist 
ence  tends  to  any  evil.  It  tends  neither  to  subvert  nor  to 
weaken  any  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  gospel.  Nay, 
rather,  it  gives  strength  to  them  all.  It  does  not  tend  to  di 
vide  or  paralyze  the  church ;  on  the  other  hand,  it  tends  to 
union  and  strength.  The  opposition,  then,  relies  on  no 
general  views,  except  the  allegations,  which  have  been  fully 
considered  and  refuted,  that  it  cannot  be  proved,  and  that  it 
does  not  avail  to  remove  any  difficulties.  Besides  these 
allegations,  there  is  nothing  except  certain  alleged  positive 
statements  of  the  word  of  God.  Of  these,  I  have  thoroughly 
considered  Rom.  5 :  12 — 19,  the  only  one  that  is  adapted 
to  exert  any  great  power.  Besides  this,  a  few  incidental 
statements  are  appealed  to,  with  reference  to  which  a  few 
words  are  all  that  is  necessary.  The  assertion  in  2  Cor.  5  : 
10  "that  (at  the  judgment)  everyone  shall  receive  the 
things  done  in  his  body,  according  to  that  he  hath  done," 
is  said  to  imply  that  there  had  been  no  previous  sin,  other 
wise  that  also  would  be  judged. 

But,  if  we  sinned  and  came  under  a  forfeiture  in  a 
previous  state,  there  is  no  need  of  an  additional  judgment, 
as  to  that  state.  By  the  supposition,  if  that  state  had  con 
tinued,  we  were  lost.  All  our  hopes  depended  on  a  new 
life  in  this  world.  Of  course,  our  acts  here  are  the  only 
proper  basis  of  a  decisive  judgement. 

To  this  it  may  be  added,  that  even  if  there  should  be,  in 
fact,  a  reference  to  our  conduct  in  our  previous  sphere  of 
45 


530  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

action,  it  would  not  conflict  with  this  passage.  For  the 
very  foundation  of  a  new  probation  in  this  world  is  to  oblit 
erate  the  memory  of  a  former  state,  and  to  speak  only  of 
this  life.  On  this  plan,  it  would  be  right  to  assert  merely 
that  we  shall  be  judged  for  our  deeds  here,  and  to  say  no 
more  ;  neither  affirming  nor  denying  anything  as  to  a  pre 
vious  state. 

It  is  also  asserted  that  God  created  Adam's  spirit  when 
it  entered  his  body,  on  the  authority  of  Gen.  2  :  7.  But, 
even  if  it  were  so,  and  if  Adam  was  made  upright,  and  fell, 
it  would  not  follow  that  the  continuance  of  the  race  was  not 
effected  by  means  of  spirits  who  had  already  fallen.  But, 
to  meet  this  latter  idea,  an  appeal  is  made  to  Zech.  12  :  1, 
as  proving  that  God  creates  the  spirits  of  men  as  they  enter 
the  body.  But  the  verse,  of  necessity,  teaches  no  such 
thing.  A  very  proper  sense  of  the  verse  is  that  God  is  the 
Creator  of  the  spirit  of  man  that  is  in  him,  —  which  would 
be  the  truth,  at  whatever  time  God  created  that  spirit. 
The  stretching  forth  the  heavens,  and  laying  the  founda 
tions  of  the  earth,  which  in  that  verse  are  ascribed  to  God, 
were  in  past  time ;  and,  therefore,  Dr.  Noyes  very  properly 
translates  the  three  verbs  in  past  time,  and  thus  makes  the 
creation  of  spirits  a  past  event,  and  not  one  which  takes 
place  daily. 

But,  even  in  the  case  of  Adam,  the  creation  of  his  spirit 
is  not  asserted  in  the  words  "God  breathed  into  his  nos 
trils  the  breath  of  life,"  but  merely  the  gift  of  natural 
life, —  that  which  unites  spirit  and  body.  If  natural  life 
ceases  in  man,  his  spirit  does  not  cease  to  exist,  but  leaves 
his  body ;  and  God  can  call  it  back  again,  and  reunite  it  by 
natural  life,  as  in  the  case  of  Lazarus.  In  such  a  case  the 
language  of  Genesis  may  properly  be  used ;  we  may  say 
God  again  breathed  into  him  the  breath  of  life;  but,  cei- 


RESULTS   AND    PRACTICAL   TENDENCIES.  581 

tainly,  he  did  not  create  his  spirit.  So  as  to  Adam  it  is 
asserted  that  God  gave  bodily  life,  but  not  that  he  then 
created  his  spirit.  The  apostle  Paul,  in  1  Cor.  15 :  44 — 
49,  expressly  applies  the  passage  to  the  life  of  the  body,  and 
thus  sanctions  the  view  which  I  have  taken. 

Appeal  is  also  made  to  the  statement  that  Adam  was 
created  in  the  image  and  likeness  of  God.  I  have  already 
said  that,  if  this  were  true  of  Adam,  even  in  a  moral  sense, 
it  would  decide  nothing  as  to  his  posterity,  but  would 
merely  prove  that  the  spirit  of  Adam  was  not  fallen  when 
it  entered  his  body.  But  there  is  no  proof  that  these  words 
are  to  be  taken  in  a  moral  sense  with  reference  to  Adam. 
This  passage  in  Genesis  has  in  Paul  a  divine  expositor. 
In  1  Cor.  11 :  7,  whilst  setting  forth  the  typical  signifi 
cance  of  God's  creative  acts,  he  asserts  that  man.  as  man, 
and  as  the  head  of  the  little  microcosm,  the  family,  is  the 
image  and  glory  of  God ;  and  that  woman,  who  represents 
the  church,  is  the  glory  of  man.  We  see,  then,  that  God, 
in  forming  man.  and  woman,  and  the  family,  so  did  it 
as  to  represent  symbolically  himself,  the  church  and  the 
universe,  as  an  infinite  family  under  one  head,  composed  by 
the  union  of  God  and  the  church. 

It  appears,  also,  from  the  context  of  the  passage  in  Gen 
esis,  that  man,  as  rational  and  intelligent,  and  ruling  over 
this  material  system,  is  also  regarded  as  in  the  image  and 
likeness  of  God.  This  view  is  almost  exclusively  the  one 
recognized  by  Augustine  and  the  fathers.  And.  in  this 
sense,  men  and  women  alike  are  spoken  of  as  in  the  image 
of  God  now  as  much  as  Adam  was.  James  accordingly  says 
of  men  in  every  generation  that  they  u  are  made  after  the 
similitude  of  God"  (James  3:  19).  On  this  ground,  also, 
the  law  against  murder  in  all  ages  is  made  to  rest.  ' '  Whoso 
sheddeth  man's  blood,  by  man  shall  his  blood  be  shed  :  for 


532  CONFLICT   OF    AGES. 

in  the  image  of  God  made  he  man."  (Gen.  9:6.)  This 
law  is  obviously  based  on  a  reason  that  exists  in  all  men, 
in  all  ages.  All  are  in  the  image  of  God. 

There  is  also  another  view  in  which  man  is  recognized  by 
Paul  as  the  image  of  God  in  a  typical  sense,  and  it  is 
one  of  great  sublimity  and  interest.  At  the  creation,  Adam 
and  Eve  were  exalted  to  be  at  the  head  of  the  universal 
new-created  system.  In  this  Paul  saw  a  designed  type  of 
the  exaltation  of  Christ  and  the  church  above  all  things,  as 
the  great  and  final  result  of  the  present  moral  system  of 
new-creation.  Of  this  the  proof  is  conclusive.  His  reason 
ing  from  the  assertion  that  God  put  all  this  natural  world 
under  the  feet  of  man,  Ps.  8 :  6,  cannot  be  explained  or 
defended  on  any  other  ground.  The  Psalmist  there  refers 
to  the  original  creation.  The  "all  things"  spoken  of  are 
' '  all  sheep  and  oxen,  yea,  and  the  beasts  of  the  field,  the 
fowl  of  the  air,  and  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  whatsoever 
passeth  through  the  paths  of  the  sea ; ' '  and  these  were  sub 
jected  to  man  at  the  time  of  the  creation.  And  yet  Paul 
argues  from  it  that  all  things,  God  only  excepted,  are  to  be 
subjected  to  Christ  and  to  the  church  in  him.  On  the 
principle  of  reasoning  from  type  to  antitype,  this  reasoning 
is  sound,  but  on  no  other.  (See  Heb.  2 :  5 — 9.  1  Cor. 
15  :  27,  28.  Eph.  1 :  22,  23.)  I  freely  admit  that  man 
was  made  in  the  image  of  God  to  the  full  extent  that  is 
implied  in  all  these  divine  testimonies.  But  no  inspired 
expositor  has  ever  said  that  the  passage  in  Genesis  has  any 
reference  to  the  moral  image  of  God.  The  views  which 
they  have  given  of  the  passage  are  enough  to  exhaust  its 
significance,  and  no  man  can  prove  that  it  was  designed  to 
mean  anything  else. 

If  any  should  inquire  whether  I  do  not  hold  that  all  men 
were  originally  made  in  the  image  of  God,  I  answer,  yes,  I 


RESULTS   AND    PRACTICAL   TENDENCIES.  533 

hold  it  much  more  consistently  and  firmly  than  it  is  possi 
ble  to  hold  it  on  the  common  view.  I  hold,  according  to 
Ecc.  7:  29,  that  "God  made  man  (that  is,  all  men)  up 
right,  and  they  have  sought  out  many  inventions."  The 
preceding  course  of  remark  shows  that  the  only  design  of 
the  writer  was  to  throw  the  guilt  of  that  great  and  general 
corruption,  of  which  he  had  been  speaking,  off  from  God, 
upon  men.  He  therefore  states  of  man,  meaning  all  men, 
that  God  maxle  them  upright,  but  they  have  sought  out 
many  inventions.  Here  is  merely  a  general  fact  stated, 
without  any  details  of  time  or  manner,  and  stated  solely  for 
the  sake  of  defending  God. 

The  truth  of  this  statement  is  much  more  apparent,  on 
the  supposition  of  preexistence,  than  on  any  other  ;  for, 
according  to  that,  all  were  created  upright,  individually; 
but,  according  to  the  common  doctrine,  men  are  no^  Created, 
but  not  upright,  and,  therefore,  they  never  have  been  up 
right  at  any  time  or  place.  To  say  that  God  made  all  men 
upright  in  Adam,  is  merely  trying  to  cover  up  the  common 
view  of  the  facts  of  the  case  with  the  fig-leaves  of  words ; 
for  it  is  maintained  that  God  creates  spirits  now,  and  that 
he  does  not  make  them  upright.  Of  course,  they  never 
were  made  upright.  Nor  is  it  any  better  to  say  that  souls 
are  generated,  and  not  created ;  for.  at  all  events,  even  so 
they  are  not  generated  upright,  and  never  were  upright. 

As  to  the  statement  that  "  God  saw  everything  that  he 
had  made,  and  lo !  it  was  very  good,"  it  would  have  been 
perfectly  appropriate  in  view  of  a  system  made  to  redeem 
fallen  souls,  such  as  I  have  set  forth.  The  word  good  does 
not  mean  holy,  for  it  includes  the  newly-organized  world, 
and  animals  as  well  as  man.  And  if  it  was  a  material  sys 
tem,  made  to  remove  existing  evils,  then,  though  sinful 
spirits  were  introduced  into  it,  yet  still  it  would  be  true,  in 
45* 


534  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

the  highest  sense,  that  it  was  all  very  good, —  that  is.  per 
fectly  adapted,  as  a  system,  for  the  ends  for  which  it  was 
made.  And,  in  this  respect,  it  was  all  the  better  for  the 
existence  of  fallen  souls  in  it ;  for,  on  any  other  supposition, 
it  could  not  gain  its  great  end. 

But  it  is  asserted  that  God's  intercourse  with  Adam 
implies  that  he  was  at  first  holy,  and  afterwards  fell  into 
sin.  But,  in  reply  to  this,  it  may  be  very  properly  alleged 
that  even  if  sinful  propensity  was  in  Adam  and  Eve.  yet, 
before  a  trial  and  test,  they  would  naturally  be  unaware  of 
it.  But,  as  soon  as  they  were  tried,  their  real  character 
was  disclosed  to  their  own  apprehension,  and  fear  and 
shame  came  over  them. 

As  to  God's  intercourse  with  Adam,  all  that  we  know  is, 
that  he  brought  the  beasts  to  Adam,  and  that  Adam  named 
them,  and  that  God  made  Eve  out  of  his  side.  But  it  is 
a  most  significant  fact  that,  on  the  first  trial,  both  of  them 
sinned.  What  proof,  then,  is  there  from  facts  that  they  were 
holy  before  ? 

The  truth  concerning  this  whole  portion  of  scripture  is, 
that  it  has  been  looked  at  from  a  wrong  point  of  vision.  Its 
import  is  wholly  typical.  So  is  it  everywhere  regarded  and 
treated  in  the  Scriptures.  The  common  mode  of  viewing  it 
has  introduced  into  it  the  elements  of  a  theological  theory, 
of  human  devising,  which  has  entirely  overlaid  and  obscured 
the  true,  simple  and  scriptural  view,  and  is  entirely  out 
of  place.  Christ,  and  the  church,  and  sin,  and  condemna 
tion,  and  righteousness,  and  redemption,  and  the  nature  and 
results  of  the  future  system,  are  here  set  forth  in  types. 
Moreover,  the  act  of  Adam  was  typical,  and  not  that  of 
Eve.  The  sentence  which  followed  the  offence  was  designed, 
as  I  have  shown,  to  be  typical,  and  to  include  all  the  race. 
So  was  the  exclusion  from  Paradise  typical.  That  the  act 


RESULTS   AND    PRACTICAL   TENDENCIES.  635 

of  Adam  alone  was  typical  is  plain ;  for  on  no  other  ground 
can  we  explain  it  that  Paul  takes  no  notice,  in  Rom.  5 
(though  he  does  elsewhere),  of  the  fact  that  the  woman  first 
sinned,  and  not  Adam,  and  thus  sin  entered  into  the  world 
by  her.  But  as  the  woman  was  not  the  type  of  Christ,  but 
Adam,  as  ruler  and  head  of  the  race,  so  it  was  upon  his  sin, 
and  not  upon  hers,  that  he  regards  the  sentence  of  death  as 
based.  If  we  look  upon  these  transactions  as  merely  typi 
cal,  all  is  plain.  If  we  look  on  them  as  causative,  then 
they  naturally  lead  to  all  the  puzzling  questions  which 
Albert  the  Great  and  other  scholastic  divines  have  discussed 
through  weary  folio  pages ;  as,  for  example,  what  would  have 
been  the  character  of  the  children,  if  Eve  had  sinned  and 
not  Adam,  or  Adam  and  not  Eve,  and  what  would  have 
been  the  law  of  child-birth  on  various  suppositions,  &c. 
The  simple  truth,  however,  is,  that  God  so  ordered  events 
as  through  Adam  to  set  forth  a  type  of  the  relations  of  the 
redeemed  to  Christ. 

The  doctrine  of  preexistence  has  also  been  opposed  on  the 
ground  that  infants  do  not  manifest  as  much  intelligence  as 
they  ought,  on  that  supposition.  But  this  is  a  mere  matter 
of  opinion.  No  one  can  say  that  the  nature  and  effect  of 
the  union  of  the  mind  with  the  body  is  not  such  that  the 
highest  created  mind  would  be  by  it  reduced  to  infancy  such 
as  we  see.  It  would  be  the  very  object  of  such  a  system  to 
deliver  the  mind  from  the  influence  of  the  memory  and  asso 
ciations  of  a  past  existence.  To  effect  a  radical  change  of 
character,  the  proud  spirit  would  be  reduced  to  a  state  of 
weakness  and  dependence ;  all  things  would  be  made  to 
seem  new, —  new  analogical  knowledge  would  be  communi 
cated,  new  motives  and  hope  would  be  made  to  open  on  the 
soul. 

An  effort  has  also  been  made  to  prove  that  the  fallen 


536  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

angels  and  men  are  different  orders  of  beings,  and  that  all 
of  the  fallen  angels  were  condemned  without  hope,  as  if  this 
were  fatal  to  the  doctrine  that  the  spirits  of  men  had  fallen 
in  a  previous  state  of  existence.  But  this,  if  true,  has  no 
force,  except  on  the  assumption  that  between  the  original  fall 
of  Satan  and  his  angels,  who  kept  not  their  first  estate,  and 
the  introduction  of  man  into  this  world,  there  was  no  subse 
quent  extension  of  the  kingdom  of  darkness.  Certainly, 
those  who  hold  that  Satan  and  his  angels  have  had  power 
to  plunge  in  ruin  the  millions  of  the  human  race,  and  who 
know  that  they  have  so  much  range  as  to  come  with  the 
sons  of  God  into  His  presence,  as  the  book  of  Job  teaches 
us,  ought  not  to  take  the  ground  that  these  same  angels 
have  not  been  able  in  past  ages  to  seduce  other  orders  of 
beings  from  their  allegiance  to  God.  But  on  this  point  I 
have  already  said  enough,  in  the  eighth  chapter  of  the  third 
book. 

Occasionally,  also,  some  one  has  been  found  to  appeal  to 
Rom.  9  :  11,  where  the  apostle  refers  to  God's  decision 
concerning  Jacob  and  Esau  before  they  had  been  born,  or 
done  good  or  evil.  But  in  this  case  the  reference  is  so  man 
ifestly  to  action  in  this  life,  that,  for  the  most  part,  all  intel 
ligent  opposers  pass  it  by  as  nothing  to  the  purpose  ;  and 
very  properly,  for  the  action  referred  to  and  denied  is  man 
ifestly  action  subsequent  to  birth. 

On  surveying  this  reasoning  of  opposers,  it  is  striking 
how  entirely  devoid  it  is  of  great  principles  and  sublime 
views.  All  these  are  against  them.  Their  reasoning  is 
merely  an  effort  to  shut  up  the  mind,  by  disconnected  and 
incidental  scriptural  statements,  to  a  system  which  in  its 
main  drift  and  general  influence  is,  as  I  have  shown,  at  war 
with  moral  principle,  dishonorable  to  God,  and  injurious  to 
man. 


RESULTS   AND    PRACTICAL   TENDENCIES.  537 

On  the  other  hand,  the  view  which  I  present  is  embodied 
in  the  great  central  measures  of  the  system,  and  is  demanded 
by  its  revealed  spirit  arid  principles.  No  incidental  passage 
has  ever  been  produced  against  it,  or  can  be,  that  does  not 
admit  of  a  legitimate  interpretation  in  perfect  coincidence 
with  it ;  and  in  such  a  case  the  main  current  of  principle 
and  of  the  system  must  decide  the  interpretation  in  my 
favor. 

To  this  I  would  add  that  the  whole  spirit  of  the  Bible  is 
in  sympathy  with  my  views.  It  is  a  book  the  great  idea  of 
which  is  a  supernatural  creation,  from  the  very  depths  of 
depravity  and  satanic  power,  by  almighty  sovereign  grace. 
It  is  not  possible  to  conceive  of  new-created  minds  as  com 
ing,  in  the  manner  commonly  supposed,  into  such  a  state  as 
is  thus  implied,  without  doing  violence  to  the  moral  nature, 
and  exciting  compassion  for  them  as  wronged.  But  God 
nowhere  regards  the  human  race  as  unfortunate  or  wronged, 
but  always  as  exceedingly  guilty.  And  no  man  can  prop 
erly  regard  the  dictates  of  his  moral  nature,  and  yet  come 
up  to  the  tone  of  the  Bible  on  this  point,  except  through  the 
doctrine  of  preexistence.  Nor  will  any  man  otherwise  ever 
have  a  consistent  view  of  the  depth  and  power  of  human 
depravity  in  this  world,  nor  of  those  abysses  of  wickedness 
which  our  Saviour  calls  the  depths  of  Satan,  and  which  he 
regards  as  so  profound  as  not  to  be  easily  understood. 

As  to  the  beneficial  intellectual  and  moral  tendencies  of 
the  views  which  I  have  advocated  I  think  that  there  can  be 
no  doubt.  Even  the  mere  fact  that  they  may  be  true  will 
open,  as  I  have  already  had  cheering  occasion  to  know,  to 
many  a  tempest-tossed  mind  a  haven  of  rest.  As  I  have 
said  in  my  introductory  remarks,  they  will  show  that  from 
the  greatest  difficulties  there  is  always  a  possible  relief. 

They  also  tend  powerfully  to  diminish  the  rigor   and 


538  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

acerbity  of  theological  controversy  on  this  subject,  and  to 
effect  a  change  in  the  intellectual  and  moral  temperament 
of  the  church.  They  rationally  demand  such  a  suspension 
of  former  judgments,  on  the  points  at  issue,  as  shall  at  least 
so  admit  the  possibility  that  the  modern  churches  of  Christ 
are  expending  their  energies  in  a  fruitless  effort  to  work 
effectually  with  an  ill-adjusted  system,  and  that  their  pain 
ful  divisions  and  alienations  on  this  subject  have  sprung 
from  this  fact,  as  shall  lead  to  a  new  and  candid  reinvesti- 
gation  of  the  whole  subject. 

They  evince,  also,  that  the  various  parties  to  this  contro 
versy  deserve  from  each  other  a  higher  degree  of  sympathy 
and  respect,  in  view  of  the  causes  which  have  led  to  their 
supposed  or  real  errors,  than  has  been  conceded.  Under  an 
ill-adjusted  system,  as  I  have  shown,  the  best  and  most  hon 
orable  impulses  of  a  Christian's  mind  may  lead  to  real  and 
injurious  errors.  The  impulses  that  have  led  the  Old  School 
divines  to  the  adoption  of  the  idea  of  a  forfeiture  in  Adam 
are  honorable  impulses,  although  the  result  is  by  so  many 
regarded,  and,  as  I  think,  justly,  dishonorable  to  God  and 
injurious  to  man.  So  also  the  rejection  of  such  a  forfeiture, 
and  of  the  doctrine  of  depravity  with  it,  by  the  Unitarians, 
is  the  natural  and  logical  result  of  the  noblest  principles  and 
impulses  of  the  human  mind,  as  the  system  now  is,  though 
the  result  is  in  the  highest  degree  calamitous  and  dangerous. 
So,  too,  the  impulses  of  the  various  classes  of  divines  who 
have  tried  to  find  a  middle  ground  between  these  extremes 
are  honorable,  and  worthy  of  our  highest  sympathy  and 
respect. 

If  this  should  but  be  duly  recognized  as  the  ground  of 
mutual  respect  and  sympathy,  and  the  certain  assurance  of 
former  decisions  be  for  a  time  suspended,  it  would  be  pos 
sible  to  review  the  whole  ground  once  more  with  the  pros- 


RESULTS   AND    PRACTICAL   TENDENCIES.  539 

pect  of  mutual  benefit  and  progress  in  the  truth.  The 
character  of  this  discussion  in  past  ages  has  been,  at  least 
on  the  surface,  too  sternly  unsympathizing.  I  say  on  the 
surface;  for,  after  all,  Augustine,  and  Pascal,  and  others 
like  them,  have  had  tender  hearts,  and  have  had  many  a 
struggle  to  suppress  the  impulses  of  their  own  honorable 
principles  and  emotions.  And  yet,  under  the  control,  as 
they  supposed,  of  divine  decisions,  they  overruled  them,  and 
sternly  enforced  their  convictions.  So  acting,  they  could 
not  aiford  to  be  tender,  and  to  yield  to  their  feelings.  They 
must  be  unnaturally  stern  to  maintain  their  ground  at  all. 
Accordingly,  in  the  hour  of  battle  who  was  more  stern  than 
Augustine  ?  And  yet  even  he,  when  he  opens  his  heart  to 
Jerome,  reveals  the  sympathies  of  a  tender  spirit,  that 
sought  in  vain  to  find  repose  for  his  noblest  feelings  upon 
views  which,  after  all,  he  felt  constrained  to  adopt  and 
defend.  If  those  who  discuss  this  question  could  but  afford 
to  look  into  each  other's  hearts,  and  see  and  respect  the 
honorable  feelings  and  impulses  that  exist  there,  it  would 
soon  be  found  that  love  and  mutual  sympathy  can  do  what 
mere  argument  can  never  effect. 

At  the  same  time,  argument  and  profound  discussion  are 
necessary,  in  order  to  come  to  any  intelligent  and  harmo 
nious  results.  For  depravity  is  a  reality,  as  much  as  bodily 
disease ;  and  the  mind  cannot  be  happy  till  it  is  healed ; 
and  yet  the  principles  of  honor  and  right  are  no  less  a 
reality,  and  the  mind  must  suffer  till  they  are  recognized 
and  honored  in  all  their  legitimate  relations  both  to  God 
and  to  man. 

But,  preeminently,  the  great  want  of  the  age  is  the 
infusion  of  a  new  and  powerful  spirit  of  sympathy  and  love 
into  the  discussion  of  this  great  question.  Nothing  else  can 
so  enlarge  and  give  dignity  to  the  intellect.  Nothing  else 


540  CONFLICT   OF   AGES. 

can  lead  to  that  candor  and  patience  and  comprehension  of 
views  which  are  indispensable  to  the  profitable  discussion  of 
so  vast  and  momentous  a  theme.  Nothing  else  can  avert 
those  premature,  superficial  and  passionate  committals, 
which  fatally  arrest  all  progress  in  true  knowledge,  and 
forever  shut  up  the  soul  in  a  narrow  circle  of  predetermined 
ideas,  without  enlargement  and  without  progress. 

And  does  not  the  time  call  for  such  an  increase  of  sym 
pathy  and  love  1  Is  there  not  an  urgent  necessity,  unknown 
before,  of  a  deeper  and  more  powerful  development  of 
Christian  experience  ?  Can  anything  else  resist  the  tenden 
cies  to  Naturalism,  Deism,  Pantheism  and  Infidelity,  which 
on  all  sides  pervade  the  community  ?  A  superficial  doctrine 
of  depravity,  and  a  feebly-developed  Christian  experience, 
can  never  meet  the  great  crisis  of  the  age  which  is  coming 
on.  The  church  needs  to  be  strengthened  with  all  might 
by  the  Spirit  in  the  inner  man.  to  be  rooted  and  grounded 
in  love,  and  to  be  able  with  all  saints  to  comprehend  the 
height  and  depth  and  length  and  breadth  of  the  love  of 
Christ,  that  passeth  knowledge,  and  to  be  filled  with  all  the 
fulness  of  God.  But,  without  that  deep  and  thorough  puri 
fication  which  results  from  deep  conviction  of  sin,  and  self- 
loathing  in  the  sight  of  a  holy  God,  this  is  impossible. 
And  now,  with  all  humility,  I  would  say  that  my  deep 
interest  in  the  views  which  I  have  presented  arises  from  a 
profound  conviction  of  their  adaptation,  and  of  their  neces 
sity  to  produce  this  result.  On  any  other  grounds,  I 
should  care  for  them  but  little,  for  this  is  the  great  interest 
of  the  age.  But  a  careful  observation  of  the  experiences 
and  the  discussions  of  the  present  and  of  past  ages  has  led 
me  to  my  present  convictions. 

I  cannot  but  hope  that  God,  in  his  providence,  is  prepar 
ing  the  way  for  a  more  profound  and  universal  conscious- 


RESULTS   AND    PRACTICAL   TENDENCIES.  541 

ness  of  the  deep  depravity  of  man.  Experience  is  proving, 
more  and  more,  the  superficiality  of  Pelagianism  to  disclose 
and  to  heal  the  deep  depravity  of  the  human  soul.  And  I 
cannot  but  joyfully  recognize  the  hand  of  God  in  the 
fact  that  the  work  on  Regeneration,  by  E.  H.  Sears,  of 
which  I  have  before  spoken,  distinctly  discards  the  Pelagian 
theory,  and  adopts  a  deeper  and  more  radical  view.  Of 
Pelagianism  he  thus  speaks:  "  May  we  suggest  that  it 
is  a  survey  of  human  nature  only  upon  the  surface,  without 
sounding  its  mystic  and  troubled  deep  7  Hence  those  who 
adopt  it  so  often  recede  from  it.  as  the  mysteries  that  lie 
within  successively  reveal  themselves.  Hence  a  church 
formed  around  this  as  one  of  its  central  principles  will  sel 
dom  retain  that  class  of  minds  whose  habits  of  thought  are 
ascetic  or  introspective,  or  whose  deep  and  surging  sensibil 
ities  demand  some  potent  voice  to  guide  and  to  soothe  them, 
some  light  to  explain  their  dark  and  terrible  on-goings. 
Its  recruits  come  from  the  side  of  the  world ;  not  from 
those  who  had  before  left  it,  and  are  passing  on  to  deeper 
experiences."  These  deeper  experiences  he  proceeds  to 
delineate  in  a  most  affecting  and  impressive  way.  He  utters 
an  earnest  and  long-needed  warning  against  the  spurious 
religionism  that  springs  from  the  intoxication  of  pride,  in 
which  "self-contemplation  is  the  highest  devotion,  and 
self- worship  the  daily  ritual."  He  gives  a  striking  de 
scription  of  conviction  of  sin,  in  the  light  of  the  divine  law. 
"  The  eternal  law  shines  down  through  our  being,  and  shows 
our  desires  and  aims,  in  opposition  to  its  own  sanctity.  It 
is  the  hatefulness  of  the  selfish  will  in  the  presence  of  the 
All-Pure.  Doubtless,  the  revelation  is  at  first  humiliating 
and  painful.  In  that  hour  of  self-conviction,  the  burden  of 
our  most  inherent  corruption  hangs  heavy  on  our  souls. 
Two  ideas,  for  the  time,  take  sole  possession  of  our  minds, 
46 


542  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

and  fill  the  whole  scope  of  our  vision.  Our  inmost  self  how 
alienated  !  The  divine  nature  how  dazzling  and  dreadful 
in  its  holiness  !"  *  *  "He  who  before  was  complacent 
and  satisfied  with  the  shows  of  a  seeming  morality  is 
startled  and  dismayed,  as  a  light  from  out  of  himself  is  let 
down  through  the  central  places  of  his  being,  and  reveals 
the  secret  corruption  that  lurks  through  all  its  winding 
recesses.  How  false  has  been  his  standard  of  right,  how 
low  have  been  his  aims,  and  what  impurities  have  tainted 
the  springs  of  his  conduct !  '  I  thought  myself  alive  with 
out  the  law,'  said  the  great  apostle  ;  'but  when  the  com 
mandment  came,  sin  revived,  and  I  died.'  When  the 
eternal  law  shone  forth,  the  sin  that  was  in  me  came  full 
into  the  range  of  my  consciousness,  and  instead  of  spiritual 
life  I  found  there  a  mass  of  death."  *  *  "What  we 
have  now  described  is  sometimes  called  'conviction  of  sin.' 
But  it  is  more  than  that.  Sin  pertains  only  to  what  is 
wrong  in  our  volitions  and  actions.  But  now  the  sources 
of  sin,  lying  deeper  than  all  volition  and  action,  are  shown 
to  us ;  for  the  vain  disguises  of  our  self-love  having  with 
ered  away  under  the  beams  of  the  divine  countenance,  the 
diseased  mass  whose  hidden  motions  had  swayed  our  voli 
tions  and  conduct  is  disclosed,  and  makes  us  cry,  i  Who  shall 
deliver  us  from  this  body  of  death  ?  '  "  (pp.  149,  150.)  His 
description  of  the  process  of  regeneration  is  no  less  heart- 
moving  and  affecting.  I  hail  these  developments  of  doctrine 
with  deep  and  undissembled  joy;  and  that  joy  is  increased  by 
the  sincerity  with  which  they  are  sanctioned  by  the  Execu 
tive  Committee  of  the  American  Unitarian  Association,  as  a 
clear  and  strong  statement  of  the  practical  doctrines  of 
Christianity,  and  of  a  profound  religious  experience.  The 
author  well  says  that  if  any  of  his  reasonings  "should  not 
sound  like  the  traditional  utterances  of  denomination,  they 


RESULTS   AND    PRACTICAL  TENDENCIES.  543 

may  yet  be  just  as  worthy  of  attention ;  "  a  thought  which 
all  men  would  do  well  to  ponder. 

Yet,  I  am  not  able  to  agree  with  the  estimable  author  in 
his  views  of  the  origin  of  this  depravity  of  nature  that  lies 
beneath  the  will,  and  which  he  does  not  regard  as  properly 
sinful.  He  ascribes  it  to  tradition,  by  descent  from  preced 
ing  sinful  generations.  "It  is  an  inherited,  disordered 
nature  impersonated  in  each  individual."  "  Adam  began  the 
work  of  the  degradation  of  the  species  ;  the  balance  between 
good  and  evil  began  to  dip  the  wrong  way ;  his  successors 
kept  adding  to  the  weight.  Sin  became  more  facile  with 
every  generation,  till  the  scale  came  heavily  down.  And 
this  is  THE  FALL  OF  MAN."  "With  primitive  man  began 
the  descending  series,  and  it  kept  on  till  the  time  of  Christ. 
Then  the  ascending  series  began,  and  it  will  keep  on  till  it 
comes  up  to  the  level  of  that  height  where  began  the  march 
of  humanity."  But  how  does  this  view  agree  with  facts? 
Were  not  men  as  much,  or  even  more,  depraved  before  the 
flood,  according  to  the  Bible,  than  they  have  been  at  any  time 
since  ?  Will  not  there  be  also  a  revolt  immediately  after 
the  millenium  ?  Are  the  children  in  a  long  line  of  holy  fam 
ilies  in  their  own  consciousness  less  depraved  ?  Was  it  so  in 
President  Edwards,  whose  experience  we  have  given  ?  Yet 
he  came  from  a  long  line  of  holy  ancestry.  Moreover,  when 
I  see  new-created  souls  coming  under  this  law,  and  beginning 
an  eternal  existence  in  depraved  society,  as  men  sink  deeper 
from  generation  to  generation,  I  cannot  recognize  the  jus 
tice  or  honor  of  God ;  I  cannot  admit  that  such  souls  have 
ever  had  a  fair  probation.  I  cannot  but  apply  to  this  point 
the  remarks  of  Dr.  Watts  concerning  the  law  of  generation, 
which  I  have  quoted  on  p.  847.  I  admit  that  certain 
causes  of  depravity  are  transmitted  by  the  material  system. 
But  the  central  elements  of  a  sinful  spirit,  pride,  selfish- 


<)44  CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 

ness,  self-will,  envy,  and  the  like,  do  not,  in  fact,  rise  and 
sink  in  successive  generations ;  nor  is  it  reasonable  to  think 
that  it  is  in  the  power  of  matter,  or  of  any  law  of  generation, 
to  originate  or  to  remove  them.  Whilst,  therefore,  I  rejoice 
in  the  depth  of  experience  indicated  in  the  work  of  Mr. 
Sears,  I  cannot  accord  with  his  views  of  the  origin  of 
human  depravity,  and  of  its  changing  scale.  Yet  I  im 
measurably  prefer  his  views  to  the  superficial  Pelagianism 
which  he  justly  rejects. 

But  to  me  nothing  seems  fully  to  meet  the  facts  of  his 
tory  and  of  the  Bible,  the  conduct  of  God  in  so  entirely 
blaming  and  condemning  man,  and  the  existence  of  "  those 
masses  of  sin  and  misery,"  of  which  Dr.  Dewey  speaks, 
"  that  overwhelm  us  with  wonder  and  awe,"  and  of  those 
"depths  of  Satan"  to  which  our  Saviour  refers,  but  the  view 
which  I  have  advanced.  To  my  mind,  every  view  is  super 
ficial  that  cannot  sound  all  of  these  depths,  and  analyze 
history  as  we  find  it  to  the  very  bottom ;  and  every  view  is 
at  war  with  the  principles  of  honor  and  right  which  under 
takes  to  go  to  such  depths  without  preexistence. 

The  doctrine  of  the  fall  in  Adam  was  designed  to  be  the 
,  foundation  and  defence  of  a  radical  doctrine  of  depravity. 
Yet  it  is,  and  has  been  in  all  ages,  the  real,  great  and  log 
ical  fountain-head  of  Pelagianism ;  and,  if  we  would  seek 
security  from  these  tendencies,  and  find  a  system  which,  in 
all  its  parts,  tends  to  deep  views  of  depravity,  and  a  pro 
found  Christian  experience,  we  must  resort  to  the  doctrine 
preexistence. 

To  evince  the  truth  of  these  statements,  let  us,  for  a 
moment,  suppose  the  system  which  I  have  delineated  to  be 
true,  and  that  the  whole  Christian  community  have  adopted 
it  as  thoroughly  as  they  have  heretofore  the  doctrine  of 
the  fall  in  Adam.  Let  us  suppose  that  the  reason,  the 


UESULT3   AND    PRACTICAL   TENDENCIES.  545 

imagination,  the  association  of  ideas,  have  come  under  its 
full  power ;  and,  now,  let  us  inquire  to  what  results  the 
system  would  naturally  and  necessarily  tend.  We  can,  in 
this  way,  form  some  judgment  of  the  power  of  the  indirect 
and  collateral  evidence  which  sustains  its  truth ;  for  a  sys 
tem  of  falsehood  cannot  tend  to  produce  the  effects  of  truth, 
nor  a  system  of  truth  those  of  falsehood. 

In  general,  then,  I  assert  that  the  natural  and  necessary 
affect  of  a  full  and  firm  belief  of  the  system,  as  I  have  set  it 
forth,  is  to  give  the  deepest  views  of  human  depravity  and  of 
original  sin,  and  to  make  regeneration,  or  moral  renovation, 
philosophically  the  great  practical  end  of  both  the  spiritual 
and  the  material  systems,  and  to  concentrate  their  united 
influence,  through  the  various  powers  of  man,  upon  a  pro 
found  development  of  this  great  change. 

I  say  that  it  makes  regeneration  the  great  practical  end 
philosophically.  For,  if  it  is  believed  that  the  mind  has 
been  so  affected  by  sinful  action,  previous  to  birth,  as  to  be 
born  depraved,  and  full  of  sinful  tendencies,  and  disjoined 
from  God,  its  true  life, —  and,  if  it  is  believed  that  this 
material  system  is  not  the  cause  of  sin,  but  has  been  so 
framed  as  by  its  analogies  to  illustrate  regeneration  and 
spiritual  life,  and  to  aid  in  producing  them, —  then  there  is 
nothing  in  the  system  to  turn  away  the  mind  from  the  great 
practical  end  of  Christianity.  By  the  very  supposition,  the 
thing  to  be  done  is  not  to  develop  the  good  tendencies  of  a 
new-created  mind  in  its  normal  state,  but  to  eradicate  the 
evil  tendencies  of  a  sinful  mind  in  a  fallen  state,  and  to 
new-create  it  in  holiness.  And  there  is  nothing  which  can 
logically  supplant  or  supersede  this  work. 

Indeed,  this  tendency  of  the  system  is  so  obvious  that  it 
has  never  been  denied.  For  this  reason,  no  doubt,  it  is 
that  the  Princeton  divines  recognize  Julius  Mil  Her  as  clearly 
46* 


546  CONFLICT  or  AGES. 

on  the  right  side  of  the  great  question  at  issue.  So,  also, 
in  the  Bibllotheca  Sacra  he  is  represented  as  holding 
firmly  a  thorough  doctrine  of  original  sin.  Augustine, 
also,  saw  this  result  very  clearly ;  and  in  one  of  his  earlier 
works, —  that  on  free-will, —  when  the  first  freedom  of  his 
mind  had  not  been  influenced  by  church  authority,  was 
favorably  disposed  towards  this  view,  and  left  it  optional  to 
any  one  who  would  to  adopt  it.  Hence,  Cudworth  repre 
sents  him  as  having  u  a  favor  and  kindness  for  it,  insomuch 
that  he  is  sometimes  staggering  in  this  point,  and  thinks  it 
to  be  a  great  secret  whether  men's  souls  existed  before  their 
generations  or  no ;  and,  somewhere,  concludes  it  to  be  a 
matter  of  indifferency,  wherein  every  one  may  have  his 
liberty  of  opening  either  way  without  offence." 

To  me  it  is  highly  probable  that  Augustine  would  have 
adopted  the  doctrine  of  preexistence,  had  it  not  been  for  the 
influence  of  certain  decisions  of  the  church  on  the  sacra 
mental  system,  which  had  sprung  from  her  Gnostic  and 
ascetic  tendencies.  Indeed,  this  is  a  fair  inference  from 
some  of  his  statements ;  for  he  found  great  difficulties,  as  we 
have  seen,  in  Jerome's  view  of  the  constant  creation  of  new 
souls  from  age  to  age,  and  no  less  in  the  theory  of  the  gen 
eration  of  souls ;  and  not  unfrequently  he  said,  especially  in 
his  book  on  the  origin  of  the  soul,  that  he  could  not  tell 
which  was  the  true  view.  Eucherius,  Bishop  of  Lyons, 
and  Alcuin  of  old,  took  the  same  ground ;  and  Doederlein 
asserts  that  Luther,  and  most  other  teachers  eminent  for 
wisdom,  have  coincided  with  them.  This,  it  will  be  ob 
served,  is  a  virtual  confession  that,  after  all,  the  question 
is  not  settled  that  the  common  view  of  Rom.  5  :  12 — 19  is 
correct ;  for,  if  it  is,  the  idea  of  preexistence  is  excluded,  by 
a  divine  decision.  How  different  would  have  been  the 
course  of  events,  had  Augustine  and  other  leading  men, 


RESULTS    AXD    PRACTICAL   TENDENCIES.  547 

when  the  question  was  first  thoroughly  discussed,  been  left 
unembarrassed  by  the  Gnostic  and  ascetic  dogmas  of  the 
church,  which  had  already  dishonored  marriage,  exalted 
celibacy  and  monasticism,  and  laid  the  foundations  of  eccle 
siastical  despotism  in  the  system  of  sacramental  regenera 
tion  and  sanctification  !  The  spirit  of  these  corrupt  systems 
is  opposed  to  preexistence  as  I  have  developed  it,  since  it 
is  at  war  with  Gnosticism,  whilst  they  imply  and  are  based 
upon  the  origin  of  sin  through  the  material  system,  which  is 
the  fundamental  principle  of  Gnosticism.  Considering,  there 
fore,  the  powerful  Gnostic  spirit  and  tendencies  of  the  age, 
and  the  power  of  church  authority,  it  is  not  to  be  wondered 
at  that  Augustine  did  not  succeed  in  rising  above  it  so  far 
as  to  adopt  and  develop  the  system  of  preexistence  as  I 
have  set  it  forth, —  a  system  which  in  its  principles  and 
spirit  would  have  been  utterly  at  war  with  Gnosticism  in 
every  form. 

One  thing,  however,  is  clear,  from  this  general  view  :  that 
it  has  been  seen  and  conceded,  in  every  age,  that  the  doc 
trine  of  pre  existent  sin  does  tend  to  a  deep  and  thorough 
view  of  depravity  and  regeneration,  and  is  not  to  be  con 
demned  on  the  ground  of  any  Pelagian  or  other  dangerous 
tendencies.  The  same,  however,  cannot  be  truly  said  of 
the  common  doctrine  of  the  fall  in  Adam ;  for,  though  it  is 
meant  to  be  the  basis  of  a  deep  doctrine  of  depravity  and 
regeneration,  and  is  commonly  supposed  to  be  such,  nev 
ertheless  it  tends  at  once,  and  with  great  logical  power,  to 
Pelagianism.  The  reason  of  this  is  plain ;  for  it  implies,  of 
course,  a  denial  of  preexistence,  and  an  assertion  that  man 
enters  this  world  as  a  new-created  being.  But  in  this  is, 
of  necessity,  contained  an  unanswerable  logical  argument 
for  Pelagianism.  For  it  has  been  conceded  on  all  hands, 
and  MOST  STRONGLY  BY  THE  MOST  ORTHODOX,  that  the  laws 


548  CONFLICT    OF   AGES. 

of  honor  and  right  demand  of  the  Creator  to  confer  on  new- 
created  beings  natures  in  a  normal  and  well-balanced  state, 
tending  to  good,  and  needing  only  development  in  a  natural 
direction.  It  follows,  of  course,  since  God  is  honorable  and 
just,  that  he  does  confer  on  all  new-born  minds  such  na 
tures  ;  and  this  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  Pelagianism. 
A  more  just,  natural  and  logical  conclusion  was  never 
drawn  from  any  premises  whatever.  It  is  perfectly  plain, 
therefore,  that,  in  the  common  doctrine  of  the  fall  of  Adam, 
there  are  the  logical  seeds  of  pure  Pelagianism,  ready  to 
spring  up  at  all  times.  This  is  the  reason  why  it  has 
always  been  so  hard  to  exterminate  this  dangerous  system. 
The  church  has  always  furnished  the  premises  which  led  to 
it,  and  has  thus  been  obliged  to  meet  it  at  a  logical  disad 


vantage. 


I  have  shown  that  all  this  is  the  result  of  a  false  decision, 
made  nearly  fifteen  centuries  ago,  under  the  overruling 
influence  of  a  church  deeply  sunk  in  the  spirit  and  the 
errors  of  Gnosticism.  Pious  as  Augustine  was,  he  could 
not  so  far  rise  above  the  spirit  of  his  age  as  to  introduce  a 
system  the  logical  development  of  which  would,  as  I  have 
shown,  have  cut  up  Gnosticism  by  the  roots.  Hence, 
though  he  saw  the  power  of  preexistence  to  explain  original 
sin,  and  at  first  looked  upon  it  with  favor,  he  yielded  to  a 
corrupt  ecclesiastical  influence,  and,  by  the  aid  of  a  false 
translation,  and  a  false  realistic  philosophy,  he  introduced 
that  false  decision,  concerning  the  great  problem  of  the  for 
feiture  of  rights  by  the  human  race,  which  has  been  to 
every  subsequent  generation  the  fountain-head  of  errors 
and  divisions.  There  is  but  one  true  solution  of  that  prob 
lem  possible,  and  that  is  through  preexistent  sin. 

Since  then,  the  general  views  which  he  introduced  have 
been  sustained  against  the  protests  of  the  principles  of 


RESULTS  AND   PRACTICAL  TENDENCIES.  549 

equity  and  honor,  by  the  supposed  testimony  of  God,  in 
Rom.  5:  12 — 19,  although  the  uniform  opinion  of  the 
church  for  nearly  the  four  preceding  centuries  had  been  that 
the  sentence  referred  to  in  that  passage  was  merely  natural 
death.  I  cannot  but  believe,  however,  that  any  one  who  will 
candidly  consider  what  I  have  said  on  that  point  will  see 
that  there  is  no  divine  testimony  to  sustain  the  doctrine  of  a 
forfeiture  in  Adam,  or  of  a  fall  in  Adam  in  any  way.  But. 
if  this  supposed  testimony  falls  away,  then,  unless  we  admit 
of  preexistent  sin,  we  come  once  more  logically  to  the  result 
that  men,  as  new-created  minds,  are  in  their  normal  state, 
and  need  only  culture  and  development ;  and  this  is  Pela- 
gianism.  and  scientifically  and  logically  at  once  cuts  up  the 
doctrine  of  regeneration  by  the  roots. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  view  which  I  present  makes 
regeneration  the  only  logical  or  philosophical  end  of  the 
system  ;  and  the  laws  of  honor  and  right,  instead  of  turning 
man  from  it,  impel  him  towards  it  with  all  their  energy. 
For,  if  God  has  not  injured  man,  but  has  conferred  on  him 
undeserved  mercy  through  this  system,  then  every  principle 
of  honor,  as  well  as  of  interest,  calls  on  him  to  yield  to  the 
divine  influences,  and  to  comply  with  the  divine  injunction 
to  cast  away  all  his  transgressions,  and  to  make  to  himself 
a  new  heart  and  a  new  spirit,  lest  he  die  forever. 

But  this  is  not  the  whole  strength  of  the  case.  For  the 
view  which  I  present  not  only  unites  the  reason,  and  the 
dictates  of  equity  and  honor,  in  the  great  work  of  regenera 
tion,  but  it  also  concentrates  the  united  energies  of  both  the 
spiritual  and  the  material  systems,  through  other  powerful 
faculties  of  man,  upon  the  great  end  of  regeneration.  Man 
has  not  only  reason,  by  which  he  longs  after  and  delights 
to  behold  a  systematic  unity  of  all  things; —  he  not  only  can 
be  influenced  through  his  intellectual,  logical  and  moral 


550  CONFLICT   OP   AGES. 

powers, —  but  he  is  powerfully  affected  through  his  imag 
ination,  and  the  association  of  ideas.  The  work  of  moral 
renovation  can  never  be  carried  to  its  highest  point,  if  these 
faculties  are  arrayed  against  it,  or  divided  against  each 
other.  But,  if  we  derive  sin  from  Adam  through  natural 
generation,  these  powers  are  arrayed  against  the  work  of 
regeneration.  Man  finds  himself  at  once  bound  in  a  ma 
terial  system,  which  he  is  obliged  to  regard  as  tending  to 
corrupt  the  soul, —  a  system  polluting  and  polluted. 

Let  any  one  read  the  development  of  this  subject  by 
Turretin,  or  by  Watts,  or  by  Ridgeley,  or  by  Willard,  or  by 
hundreds  of  others,  and  see  if  it  is  not  so.  Even  if  any  try 
theoretically  to  disavow  it.  it  comes  practically  to  this  issue. 
But,  if  sin  comes  through  generation  and  the  material  sys 
tem,  then,  as  in  the  Romish  church,  marriage  is  dishonored, 
and  the  imagination  and  association  of  ideas  defile  and  are 
defiled.  But.  if  the  origin  of  sin  is  thrown  back  into  a  spirit 
ual  state, —  if  this  system  is  made  to  aid  in  regeneration, 
if  all  its  analogies,  properly  understood  and  used,  tend  to  it. 
—  then  is  marriage  honored,  and  the  imagination  and  the 
association  of  ideas  are  purified  at  once,  and  unite  their 
energies  in  the  great  work  of  moral  renovation. 

Thus  the  views  which  I  present  alone  avert  all  tenden 
cies  to  Pelagianism,  and  make  a  supernatural  regeneration 
the  great  and  philosophical  end  of  the  system.  They  also 
provide  the  means  of  deep  and  thorough  sanctification. 
Moreover,  they  present  to  the  sanctified  reason  that  com 
plete  unity  of  the  spiritual  and  material  worlds  in  one 
intelligible  system  which  meets  the  highest  intellectual  and 
philosophical  wants  of  the  mind.  They  also  give  a  true 
system  of  mental  philosophy,  based  on  an  investigation  of 
the  normal  state  of  the  mind,  the  nature  and  laws  of  unper- 
verted  free  agency,  the  effects  of  sin  on  the  faculties,  and 


RESULTS   AND    PRACTICAL   TENDENCIES.  551 

the  changes  needed  to  restore  the  mind  to  its  true  and 
original  harmony  and  life  in  God. 

So,  also,  they  fully  develop  the  idea  of  God,  so  as  to 
meet  the  wants  of  the  mind  thoroughly  regenerated  and 
purified; — holy  and  just,  yet  not  an  unfeeling  and  arbitrary 
God,  but  sympathetic,  tender,  gentle,  patient,  condescend 
ing,  as  well  as  all-wise  and  all-mighty. 

The  great  end  and  final  result  of  the  system  is  also  one 
which  deeply  interests  the  feelings  and  excites  the  imagina 
tion.  It  is  the  redemption  of  the  church,  and  her  eternal 
union  to  God,  in  infinite  love,  for  the  highest  and  most 
benevolent  ends.  Viewed  from  this  point  of  vision,  what  a 
history  is  that  of  the  church  !  What  tragedies  of  suffering 
does  it  involve,  but  how  glorious  the  final  result !  It  thus 
opens  the  way  to  pure  and  perfect  emotion,  in  sympathy 
with  God  and  the  universe ;  for  it  discloses  the  great  centre 
of  God's  emotion,  and  brings  the  mind  into  sympathy  with 
him  and  with  his  angels,  with  reference  thereto. 

It  discloses,  also,  the  great  centre  of  spiritual  beauty,  in 
the  united  loveliness  of  God  and  the  church.  Out  of  Zion, 
the  perfection  of  beauty,  God  is  seen  to  shine.  It  thus 
explains  the  analogies  of  this  spiritual  beauty,  as  seen  in 
the  highest  beauty  of  man  and  woman,  and  in  their  union, 
and  also  in  nature.  It  thus  purifies,  develops  and  elevates, 
the  imagination.  It  also  aids,  as  nothing  else  can,  to  sub 
ordinate,  control  and  sanctify,  the  appetites  and  the  senses. 
It  employs  the  association  of  ideas  to  link  all  things  to  the 
glorious  and  holy  ends  of  the  system.  In  marriage,  and  in 
the  family,  we  are  constantly  reminded  of  the  glorious 
consummation  of  all  things  at  the  close  of  this  dispensation. 
The  changes  of  day  and  night,  the  revolving  seasons,  the 
varied  colors  of  the  landscape,  and  of  morning  and  evening, 
are  linked  by  spiritual  associations  and  analogies  to  the 


552 


CONFLICT   OF  AGES. 


universal  system.  Thus  this  faculty  imparts  to  all  objects 
and  events  of  this  earthly  scene  a  heavenly  color  and 
radiance. 

Thus  this  dispensation,  truly  viewed,  gives  rise  to  a  sys 
tem  of  education  which  so  trains  man  as  to  sanctify  and 
unite  all  his  powers,  and  in  no  respect  to  divide  the  mind 
against  itself.  It  unites  faith  and  reason,  and  makes  a 
supernatural  development  rational.  It  sanctifies  the  world 
and  life  in  all  their  parts. 

It  exposes,  moreover,  the  delusive  nature  of  those  ideas 
of  progress  which  are  caused  by  the  illusions  of  pride.  It 
discloses  the  true  end  of  this  world  as  a  moral  hospital,  and 
makes  it  apparent  that  humiliation,  confession  of  sin,  and 
purification  and  pardon,  are  the  final  results  of  the  truest 
and  highest  progress.  Life  thus  becomes  sober,  the  world 
is  valuable  chiefly  for  its  spiritual  ends,  and  heaven  is  seen 
to  be  the  true  and  only  home. 

It  explains  God's  mode  of  discipline  and  culture  by 
trials  varied  and  severe,  and  the  reasons  why  He  so  highly 
values  the  faith  and  patience,  and  other  graces  of  his  peo 
ple  thus  produced.  It  enables  Christians  to  understand  for 
what  glorious  ends  God  is  training  them,  and  for  what  pur 
poses  they  will  be  called  on  to  put  forth  their  powers,  as 
kings  and  priests  to  God  forever.  It  thus  furnishes  the 
noblest  end,  the  highest  standard,  and  the  most  powerful 
motives  for  self-culture ;  and  makes  life,  from  beginning  to 
end,  a  constant  system  of  education  for  eternity. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


OCT    3  W8 

JUL  0  7  2003 

_r*iAtr*t£V^ 

2QJi»w 

RF.C'D  LD 

MAR  °3  '£R-1?  M 

FIHn  fi.x  QQ    1/C  m 

j     •  ;••.£  \    t  8  1 

OCT  i  2  1967 

£>*-  *.  ^ 

. 

:  "'     W-GPf, 

•  N  tee. 

Mtil< 

REC'D  LD     Jl>L 

1370-8AM2  2 

LD  21-95w-7,'37 

The  con 


I-CT:  or  s.ges 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


